Volume 555 — United States Reports

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2008 term, which began on October 6, 2008 and concluded October 4, 2009.

Held: The application is granted, and the TRO is vacated. Respondents are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce HAVA § 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283. Application granted and stay vacated.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.

Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 260 Fed. Appx. 599. Richard P. Bress argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Maureen E. Mahoney, J. Scott Bal lenger, Matthew K. Roskoski, Robert Lee, Jonathan P. Shel don, and Randi R. Vickers. Katherine B. Burnett, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, and Jerry P.

Respondent Pulido was convicted by a California jury of felony murder. Held: The Ninth Circuit erred by categorizing the error as structural rather than applying Brecht. This Court has previously held that vari ous forms of instructional error, such as omitting or misstating an ele ment of an offense, are not structural but instead trial errors subject to harmless-error review. See, e. g., Neder v.

Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising.

Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009), was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the conviction of a state defendant is not "final" if a state court grants an "out-of-time" appeal and the defendant has not yet filed a federal habeas petition.

Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that failing to report for incarceration does not qualify as a "violent felony" for the purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2009. The court decided that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, but the information regarding that warrant is later found to be incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency.

Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.

Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved the conviction of Cesar Sarausad for second-degree murder due to his role as driver in a shooting regarding gang activity and high school students. Sarausad sought federal habeas corpus relief, but the act of providing relief to Sarausad was called back into judicial review by the State of Washington in a certiorari petition. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case. The Roberts Court held that Sarausad was tried with due process by the State of Washington, and that he should not have been granted habeas corpus relief. In doing so, the federal government overstepped its bounds.

Locke v. Karass, 555 U.S. 207 (2009), is a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Constitution permits the local chapter of a labor union to charge a "service fee" to non-members to cover non-local litigation expenses if (a) the expenses are "appropriately related to collective bargaining" and (b) there is a reciprocal relationship between the local chapter and the national union. The case expanded on and clarified the earlier Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, which permitted such service fees for non-political activities but did not reach a consensus on whether "national" expenses were chargeable.

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that parents could sue a school committee under grounds of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Held: the District Court “appropriately framed its final determination in line with §3553(a)’s overarching instruction to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals ad vanced in §3553(a)(2).” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Two other Courts of Appeals agree with the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of this language.

Crawford v. Nashville, 555 U.S. 271 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects an employee who opposes unlawful sexual harassment, but does not report the harassment themself.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as rele vant here, obligates administrators to manage ERISA plans “in accord ance… Held: Because Liv did not attempt to direct her interest in the SIP bene fits to the Estate or any other potential beneficiary, her waiver did not constitute an assignment or alienation rendered void under §1056(d)(1). Pp. 292–299. 555US2 Unit: $U17 [01-28-14 16:48:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN 286 KENNEDY v. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DuPONT SAV.

United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when a statute delegates an interpretive decision to an administrative agency in the first instance, the agency's interpretation governs in the absence of unambiguous statutory language to the contrary or an unreasonable resolution of ambiguous language. Here, the Commerce Department's interpretation of the contract at issue as a sales of goods rather than of services reflected a permissible interpretation and application of its authorizing statute.

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a Terry-stop patdown of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided that the police reasonably suspect that the passenger is armed and dangerous.

Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on management tasks such as their supervision or training of subordinates and their information-system organization. Particularly, the lead prosecutor in this case was immune from suit for improperly supervising the disclosures made by line prosecutors pursuant to Brady v. Maryland.

Held: The Fourth Circuit erred in rejecting Nelson’s argument that the District Court impermissibly applied a presumption of reasonableness to his Guidelines range. This Court stated fairly explicitly in Rita that a sentencing court may not presume that a sentence within the applica ble Guidelines range is reasonable. Ibid. The fact that the District Judge did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory is beside the point.

Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a state ban on political payroll deductions for contributions by public employees to their union's political action committee does not infringe the unions' First Amendment rights.

Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal government could not take land into trust that was acquired by the Narragansett Tribe in the late 20th century, as it was not federally recognized until 1983. While well documented in historic records and surviving as a community, the tribe was largely dispossessed of its lands while under guardianship by the state of Rhode Island before suing in the 20th century. The Court ruled that the phrase of tribes "now under Federal jurisdiction" in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 referred only to those tribes that were federally recognized when the act was passed.

United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting Section 921(a)(33)(A) of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1996. The Court held that a domestic relationship is not necessarily a defining element of the predicate offense to support a conviction for possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Pacific Bell d/b/a AT&T did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act when it charged other Internet providers a high fee to buy space on its phone lines to deliver an Internet connection. The court ruled that where there is no duty to deal at the wholesale level and no predatory pricing at the retail level, a firm is not required to price both of these services in a manner that preserves its rivals’ profit margins.

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled on the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on a government establishment of religion specifically with respect to monuments (e.g., statues) on public land.

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case decided 5–4 in which several environmental organizations, including Earth Island Institute, brought suit against the United States Forest Service (USFS) to enjoin that federal agency from implementing rules that would allow the salvage sale of timber from 238 acres of fire-damaged federally owned land without conducting the notice, comment, and appeal process of the Forest Service Decision-making and Appeals Reform Act. While the environmental organizations were litigating the injunction in the lower courts, the parties reached a settlement regarding the 238 acres in question and the district court accordingly dismissed.

Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving whether the bar to asylum in the United States for persecutors applies to asylum applicants who have been the target of credible threats of harm or torture in their home countries for refusing to participate further in persecution. The petitioner, Daniel Negusie, claimed he was forced to assist in the mistreatment of prisoners in Eritrea under threat of execution, and that because any assistance he rendered was provided under duress he should still be eligible for asylum. The Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals and United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred in their interpretation of the Court's holding in Fedorenko v.

Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law.