Volume 546 — United States Reports

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006. Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted. The cases for this term are listed chronologically, noting the midterm change in the Court's membership caused by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito to her seat on January 31, 2006.

Held: The Ninth Circuit exceeded its limited habeas authority in commanding the Arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve Smith’s mental retardation claim. Atkins makes clear that “the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [States’] execution of sentences” falls to the States in the first instance. 536 U. S., at 317. Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

Held: The Ninth Circuit erred in holding, based on Faretta, that a violation of a law library access right is a basis for federal habeas relief. A necessary condition for such relief is that the state-court decision be “contrary to, or involv[e] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by” this Court. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).

Decided October 31, 2005 On the last day available for post-trial motions after petitioner’s conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine, he moved for, inter alia, a new trial, raising a single… Held: Because the time prescriptions in Rules 33 and 45 are nonjurisdictional, claim-processing rules, the Government forfeited its untimeliness defense by failing to raise it until after the District Court had reached the merits.

IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), is a US labor law case of the a United States Supreme Court, interpreting the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.

United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States waives sovereign immunity only where local law would make a "private person" liable in tort, not where local law would make "a state or municipal entity" liable.

Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), is a Supreme Court case that determined that the burden of proof belonged to whoever challenged an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Schaffer v. Weast revised the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which had introduced IEPs as a method of ensuring an individual and effective education for disabled students. Prior to Schaffer v. Weast, when any party challenged an IEP, the burden of proof was almost always placed on the respective school system.

Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 381 Md. 218, 849 A. 2d 410. Kathryn Grill Graeff, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, and Annabelle L. Lisic and Diane E. Keller, Assistant Attorneys General. James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Held: The Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the transferred intent doctrine was inapplicable under state law and that respondent was entitled to relief under Strickland. The Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of the relevant state statute, as announced in its review of respondent’s case, directly contradicts the Sixth Circuit’s analysis.

Title 28 U. S. C. § 1441 authorizes the removal of civil actions from state court to federal court when the state-court action is one that could have been brought, originally, in federal court. Held: Defendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State.

Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Indians, 546 U.S. 95 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state's non-discriminatory fuel tax imposed on off-reservation distributors does not pose an affront to a tribe's sovereignty.

In removing petitioner Martins’ state-court class action to federal court on diversity grounds, respondents (collectively, Franklin) acknowledged that the amount in controversy was not clear from the… Held: Absent unusual circumstances, attorney’s fees should not be awarded under § 1447(c) when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal. Conversely, where no objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be awarded.

Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning whether the United States government can offset Social Security benefits to collect on student loan debt over 10 years old. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision that allowed the offset by the government.

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the protection of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), passed by the U.S. Congress, extends to persons held in a state prison and protects prison inmates from discrimination on the basis of disability by prison personnel. Specifically, the court held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12165., is a proper use of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, making it applicable to prison system officials.

Held: that the problem before us is not a problem of the admissibility of certain evidence. It is a problem of the emphasis given to that evidence by the State or the trial court. If that improper emphasis is strong enough, it can wrongly place a "thumb on death's side of the scale" at Stage Two (sentencing).

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Court under the new Chief Justice of the United States.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent.

Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a young African American woman, Juror 16, from a defendant's drug trial jury in a California court case, based on her youth and on her alleged "eye rolling" in answer to a question. The defendant, Steven Martell Collins, challenged the striking of Juror 16, saying her exclusion was based on race, but the trial judge agreed that the prosecutor's reasons were race-neutral. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling, and the Federal District Court dismissed Collins' habeas corpus petition with prejudice.

Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a refusal to apply the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar is not open to collateral appeal.

Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution abrogates state sovereign immunity. It is significant as one of only three cases allowing Congress to use an Article I power to authorize individuals to sue states, the others being PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey and Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety.

Appellant Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), sought a judgment declaring § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) unconstitutional as applied to broadcast advertisements… Held: WRTL’s as-applied challenge is not foreclosed by McConnell.

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the government had failed to show a compelling interest in prosecuting religious adherents for drinking a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I controlled substance. After the federal government seized its sacramental tea, the New Mexican branch of the União do Vegetal (UDV), a Brazilian church that imbibes hoasca in its services, sued, claiming the seizure was illegal, and sought to ensure future importation of the tea for religious use. The church won a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, which was affirmed on appeal.

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning contract law and arbitration. The case arose from a class action filed in Florida against a payday lender alleging the loan agreements the plaintiffs had signed were unenforceable because they essentially charged a higher interest rate than that permitted under Florida law.

Held: The Ninth Circuit erred in implicitly concluding that the Ministry was an agency or instrumentality of Iran under § 1610(b). FSIA’s “engaged in commercial activity” exception applies only where the property at issue is held by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, not by a foreign state itself.

Decided February 21, 2006 African-American petitioners Ash and Hithon filed suit, alleging that respondent Tyson Foods, Inc., violated… Held: While the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment may be correct in the final analysis, the court (1) erred insofar as it held that modifiers or qualifications are necessary to render the term “boy,” which the plant manager used to refer to petitioners, probative of bias, and (2) erred with regard to its standard for determining whether Tyson’s…

Decided February 21, 2006 Several rounds of state-court litigation following the 2000 census culminated in a Colorado Supreme Court holding that the state legislature’s congressional redistricting… Held: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar plaintiffs from proceeding. The District Court erroneously conflated preclusion law with Rooker-Feldman. Whatever the impact of privity principles on preclusion rules, Rooker-Feldman is not simply preclusion by another name.

Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving claims for racial discrimination against the right to make and enforce contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a key civil rights provision in U.S. law that was originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, that because agents of parties to contracts do not personally have rights under those contracts, they cannot state a claim under section 1981.

Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the extent to which the United States Postal Service has sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by private individuals under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court ruled that an exception to the FTCA that barred liability for the "negligent transmission of mail" did not apply to a claim for injuries caused when someone tripped over mail left by a USPS employee. Instead, the exception only applied to damage caused to the mail itself or that resulted from its loss or delay.

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides a private cause of action to victims of employment discrimination. The Court ruled that Title VII's "employee-numerosity requirement," which limits potential defendants to those maintaining at least fifteen employees, is not a limit on a court's jurisdiction to hear Title VII claims. The requirement is instead a substantive element of a Title VII claim, which means that a defendant must raise the issue prior to verdict or the requirement will be waived.

Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not grant criminal defendants facing the death penalty the right to introduce new evidence of their innocence during sentencing that was not introduced during trial. Accordingly, states could constitutionally exclude such evidence from the sentencing phase of a capital trial.

Held: “the defendants’ conclusory statements that the mosaic argument is applicable here, absent supporting facts, would not suffice to support a judicial finding to that effect.” Application, App. B, at 19-20.