Volume 553 — United States Reports

United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company, 553 U.S. 1 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns refunds for a tax that was levied and subsequently found to be unconstitutional. The Court held that a person claiming a refund for an unconstitutional tax must go through the normal administrative procedures for tax refunds before filing a lawsuit against the government.

MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent a state may tax companies that are not based in their state.

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection used for capital punishment.

Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the definition of "serious drug felony" for the purposes of sentencing an individual as having a prior drug conviction is taken from 21 U.S. Code § 802(44)[1] and not § 802(13). The former definition ties the meaning of "felony drug offense" to a drug offense punishable by more than a year in prison regardless of the jurisdiction, while the latter has a broader jurisdiction.

Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that felony driving while intoxicated is not a "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that addresses use of evidence obtained by police in a search incident to an arrest if that arrest is later found to be unlawful. The arrest was unlawful because it was not permitted by state law. However, the Supreme Court held that the arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.

Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the right to have a district judge preside over jury selection can be waived by counsel, allowing a magistrate judge to serve as a substitute.

United States v. Ressam, 553 U.S. 272 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an person who possessed explosives "during" the commission of another crime is eligible for a mandatory 10-year sentence on top of any other sentence even if the explosives were not related to the crime they committed.

United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child pornography with which to trade.

Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Kentucky law that provides a preferential tax break to Kentucky residents who invest in bonds issued by the state and its municipalities (municipal bonds). The Court held in a 7–2 vote that the State of Kentucky does not engage in unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce by exempting the interest on its bonds from residents' taxable income while taxing the interest earned on the bonds of other states. The case has national implications because thirty-six (36) states have tax schemes similar to the one at issue in Kentucky.

United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Armed Career Criminal Act. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 6–3 majority, ruled that although the elements of a crime may not be considered "serious," sentence enhancements related to a defendant's prior record will bear on how the determination is made.

Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a court's order resolving liability without addressing a plaintiff's requests for relief is not a final judgment. The facts of the case involved Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

CBOCS West, Inc., v. Hedrick G. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the petitioner, Hedrick Humphries, was unfairly retaliated against by CBOCS West Inc. for complaining to managers about the dismissal of another black employee for race reasons. The court found that CBOCS West Inc. had violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008), is a labor law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that federal employees can assert claims for retaliation resulting from filing an age discrimination complaint. The case continued the Court's long-standing position that cause for action following retaliation can be inferred in civil rights legislation, even though the law does not explicitly provide protection against victimization.

United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the rule of lenity requires that the federal money-laundering statute's use of the inherently-ambiguous term "proceeds" be read in the light favorable to the accused. Here, that means it includes criminal "profit" and not criminal "receipts."

Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal money-laundering statute contains no "legitimate wealth" requirement, and mere proof that the defendant was attempting to conceal the money is not enough to uphold a conviction.

Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States evaluated standards for awarding attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. After it prevailed in a lawsuit for back wages, Richlin filed an application for reimbursement of fees and expenses from the lawsuit, including 523.8 hours of paralegal work. Richlin requested the paralegal fees at the market rate for the services, rather than at the cost to the law firm that represented Richlin. The Department of Transportation's Board of Contract Appeals ruled that recovery of fees should be limited to the cost to the attorneys, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's determination.

Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the class-of-one theory of equal protection does not apply in the public employment context.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The decision made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes.

Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a RICO plaintiff asserting a claim predicated on mail fraud does not need to show that that plaintiff relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations.

Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must prove that the false claim was made with the specific intent of inducing the government to pay or approve payment of a false or fraudulent claim, rather than merely defrauding a contractor. Congress overruled this decision with the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case where the court unanimously concluded that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), extends to U.S. citizens held overseas by American forces subject to an American chain of command, even if acting as part of a multinational coalition. But, it found that habeas corpus provided the petitioners with no relief, holding that "Habeas corpus does not require the United States to shelter such fugitives from the criminal justice system of the sovereign with authority to prosecute them." The case dealt specifically with the appeals from Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Ahmad Omar, both naturalized citizens of the United States held by MNF-I, specifically American, forces in Iraq.

Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) does not apply to a variance from a recommended Federal Sentencing Guidelines range; that rule applies only to "departures."

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States.

Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines, via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The case stemmed out of disputes surrounding one of the overseas investments and bank accounts of Ferdinand Marcos, Arelma S.A.. Marcos was President of the Philippines until being overthrown in the People Power Revolution.

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case involving res judicata. It held that a "virtually represented" non-party cannot be bound by a judgment.