Volume 556 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 556 of the United States Reports:

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal court may consider a Federal Arbitration Act §4 petition's underlying controversy to determine whether the controversy "arises under" federal law; however, the underlying controversy must satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule for the federal court to have jurisdiction over the case.

Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (2009), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that trial delay caused by a criminal defendant's public defender should be attributed to the defense, rather than the government, does not violate the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Kansas has filed an exception to the Special Master’s Fifth and Final Re port in this action concerning the Arkansas River, contending that the Special Master erred in concluding that 28 U. S. Held: Expert witness attendance fees that are available in cases brought under this Court’s original jurisdiction shall be the same as the expert witness attendance fees that would be available in a district court under § 1821(b).

Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that habeas relief may only be granted if the state court decision unreasonably applied the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard established by Strickland v. Washington. Moreover, no federal court has clearly endorsed applying a looser standard where the defense attorney ought to have done something because the defendant had "nothing to lose" was sufficient to find ineffective assistance.

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Rule 52(b)'s plain error test applies to challenges of whether the prosecutor failed to follow through on a plea bargain, so those challenges generally cannot be made for the first time on appeal.

Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving whether the rejection of a defendant's peremptory challenge to a juror constituted harmless error.

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 U.S. 163 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case about the former crown lands of the Hawaiian monarchy, and whether the state's right to sell them was restricted by the 1993 Apology Resolution. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, ruled unanimously that the state had the power to sell the lands free of encumbrances.

Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 344 Ore. 45, 176 P. 3d 1255. Stephen M. Shapiro argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Andrew L. Frey, Andrew H. Scha piro, Lauren R. Goldman, Kenneth S. Geller, Miguel A. Es trada, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., David J. Debold, Kenneth S. Geller, William F. Gary, and Sharon A. Rudnick. Robert S. Peck argued the cause for respondent.

Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that federal law gave indigent death row inmates the right to federally appointed counsel to represent them in post-conviction state clemency proceedings, when the state has declined to do so. Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court on June 23, 2008.

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS). Reversing a lower court opinion, the 5-1-3 ruling upheld the EPA's decision as reasonable to allow CBA to determine the best technology available to maintain national environmental standards.

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), is a United States labor law case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the rights of unionized workers to sue their employer for age discrimination. In this 2009 decision, the Court decided that whenever a union contract "clearly and unmistakably" requires that all age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) be decided through arbitration, then employees subject to that contract cannot have those claims heard in court. Pyett's lawyers, in addition to arguing that a union could not legally bargain away an employee's right to pursue an ADEA claim in court, also argued that "the facts... [show that the union] Local32BJ...

United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Navajo Nation initiated proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that when they sought the assistance of the United States Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate their original leasing agreement with the Peabody Coal Company in 1984, a procedural process defined by the 1964 Indian Mineral Leasing Act (IMLA) of 1938, the United States Secretary of the Interior had been improperly influenced by the coal company, and as a result, had breached his fiduciary duty to the Nation when he approved the 1987 lease amendments.

Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that 18 U. S. C. §3501 modified the McNabb–Mallory doctrine but did not supplant it.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law-enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

In 1997, the International Court of Arbitration awarded petitioner Iranian Ministry of Defense (hereinafter Iran) $2.8 million to settle a dispute with Cubic Defense Systems, Inc., a California… Held: The asset in question was not “blocked” at the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Federal Circuit's review of claims decisions made by the Department of Veterans Affairs must use the same harmless-error framework used in other civil cases.

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that immigrants who are contesting their impending deportation may request stays using the ordinary standards, but they cannot claim that they will be irreparably injured by wrongful deportation.

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior.

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld regulations of the Federal Communications Commission that ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts, finding they were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The constitutional issue, however, was not resolved and was remanded to the Second Circuit and re-appealed to the Supreme Court for a decision in June 2012.

Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upholding a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the discharge of a firearm during the commission of any violent or drug trafficking crime, against a bank robber whose gun went off accidentally.

Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a statement collected in violation of the Sixth Amendment may be admissible to impeach inconsistent testimony at trial.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that to be an "arranger" under CERCLA requires the specific intent to dispose toxic waste.

Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not alter state contract law regarding the scope of agreements, including arbitration agreements.

Respondents filed a state-court suit alleging that petitioner had violated state and federal law in connection with a patent dispute. Held: A district court’s order remanding a case to state court after declin ing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims is not a remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for which appellate re view is barred by §§ 1447(c) and (d).

Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the law enhancing the sentence for identity theft requires proof that an individual knew that the identity card or number he had used belonged to another, actual person. Simply using a Social Security Number is not sufficient connection to another individual.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a plaintiff in a civil law case must plead a claim in a "plausible" manner. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs need to meet to commence a lawsuit. Further, the Court held that government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity.

AT&T Corporation v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. 701 (2009), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court, holding that maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act needed not to be considered in calculating employee pension benefits.

Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New York law preventing state trial courts from hearing claims for money damages against prison employees whether based on federal or state law violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009), is a 5–4 decision by the United States Supreme Court that overruled the Court's decision in Michigan v. Jackson. The case concerned the validity of a defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during a police interrogation. In reversing Jackson, the Court said such a waiver was valid.

Abuelhawa v. United States, 556 U.S. 816 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a defendant who used a cellphone for the misdemeanor purchase of cocaine could not be charged with a felony for using a "communication facility" to facilitate the distribution of an illegal drug under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).

Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a courts from conducting a full hearing on a convicted defendant's mental capacity to determine if they are eligible for the death penalty.

Decided June 1, 2009 A common-carrier railroad employee with asbestosis can recover damages under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for fear of develop ing lung cancer in the future if he… Held: The Court of Appeals’ ruling and the trial court’s refusal to give an instruction on the Ayers standard were clear error.

Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. 848 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act gave the president the authority to restore the sovereign immunity of Iraq. Accordingly, Americans do not have a right to sue the post-occupation Iraqi government for torture and other abuse committed under Saddam Hussein.

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."

United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the military appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear a request for a writ of coram nobis.

United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must file an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving what constitutes an "enterprise" under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The Court, in a 7-2 opinion, held that any group convened to carry out a crime meets the definition of an enterprise, even if it was only created for that purpose.

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, 556 U.S. 960 (2009), was a lawsuit brought in United States federal court June 2009 by several pension funds against Chrysler LLC and the United States Department of the Treasury, to block the planned sale of Chrysler LLC assets to a "New Chrysler" entity in the Chrysler bankruptcy.