Volume 543 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 543 of the United States Reports:

Norfolk Southern Ry. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the extent to which maritime bills of lading cover non-maritime portions of a shipment, together with connected clauses for exclusion of liability.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, 543 U.S. 50 (2004), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress's 1995 amendment of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) left unaltered the prior minimum and maximum limits of $100 and $1,000 prescribed for statutory damages awarded to plaintiffs in TILA violation suits involving personal-property loans.

Held: The City was not barred from terminating Roe. While a government employer may impose restraints on employee speech, the employees have the right to speak on matters of public concern, typically those concerning government policies of interest to the public at large, see Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138; Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563.

Held: Kansas' request to appoint a River Master to decide various technical disputes related to decree enforcement is denied. This Court has appointed River Masters to help resolve States' water-related disputes only twice before, Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U. S. 124, and New Jersey v. New York, 347 U.

KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the defendant in a trademark infringement action may raise a fair use defense without proving that there is no likelihood of confusing the marks. The court's interpretation of the principal federal trademark statute, the Lanham Act, puts the burden to show that a likelihood of confusion exists on the plaintiff as part of their prima facie case. The defendant, on the other hand, has no independent burden to prove that aspect of the infringement allegation is untrue. According to the court, it follows that some level of confusion and fair use can coexist in the trademark system.

Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that attorneys lack third-party standing to assert the rights of indigent defendants denied their constitutional right to have appointed appellate counsel.

Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with warrantless arrests and the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that even if an officer wrongly arrests a suspect for one crime, the arrest may still be "reasonable" if there is objectively probable cause to believe that the suspect is involved in a different crime.

Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a private party can seek contribution under CERCLA's §113(f) only after being sued under §106 or §107(a).

Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that defense counsel's failure to obtain the defendant's express consent to a strategy of conceding guilt in a capital trial does not automatically render counsel's performance deficient.

Held: The Ninth Circuit wrongly decided the qualified immunity issue. Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 206. The focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful.

Held: Conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of § 1956(h), does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Pp. 212-219.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(2)(E)(iv) permits a non-citizen to be deported to a country without the advance consent of that country's government.

Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case ending the detention of people who had been denied refugee status. They were kept in prison awaiting deportation even though they could not in fact be deported due to a political stalemate with Cuba. An alien can be found inadmissible on the grounds of poor health, criminal history, substance trafficking, prostitution/human trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activity, etc. The deportation process requires a ruling from an immigration judge for violating immigration laws. The case resolved conflicting rulings made by the 9th and 11th circuits on whether Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) was applicable to inadmissible immigrants, Sergio Martinez and Daniel Benitez.

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses.

Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with Commissioner v. Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The Supreme Court held when a taxpayer's recovery constitutes income, the taxpayer's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the Civil Rights Tax Relief in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

Held: Because petitioner did not properly raise his federal claim in the State Supreme Court, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. Petitioner's argument that he presented his federal claim by citing a state case, which cited another state case, which in turn cited Beck, presents a daisy chain too lengthy to meet this Court's standards for proper presentation of a federal claim.

Held: The Sixth Circuit had no power to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Assuming that it correctly concluded that the State's statutory aggravating circumstance was facially vague, it erred in presuming that the State Supreme Court did not cure that vagueness because the state court neither mentioned nor cited Dicks. Under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)'s "`highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,'" Woodford v.

Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that submitting a count to the jury after the judge has granted a mid-trial acquittal subjects a defendant to further factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a dredge is a "vessel" under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a prison system's policy of segregating new residents by race for the purpose of inhibiting gang violence is subject to strict scrutiny analysis.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5–4 decision overruled Stanford v. Kentucky, in which the court had upheld execution of offenders at or above age 16. Roper overturned statutes in 19 states.

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a contract with the Federal Government to reimburse the tribe for health care costs was binding, despite the failure of Congress to appropriate funds for those costs.