Volume 558 — United States Reports

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010. Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions 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.

Held: The performance of Porter’s counsel was deficient, and the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland in holding that Porter was not prejudiced by that deficiency. That counsel failed to conduct even a cursory investigation into Porter’s background shows that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. See 466 U. S., at 688.

Held: Goolsby’s entry into the house was lawful under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement, which applies where officers have “an objectively reasonable basis for believing” that medical assistance is needed or persons are in danger. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 406.

Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case that deals with the federal review of state laws, known as the adequate and independent state ground doctrine.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 558 U.S. 67 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision on labor disputes.

Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision on seizure of property by the Chicago Police Department, however the case was declared moot by the Court as the parties agreed that there was no longer contention over the property seized.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that disclosure orders adverse to attorney–client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.

Decided January 11, 2010 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. Held: Because the trial record includes both the DNA evidence and other convincing evidence of guilt, the lower federal courts clearly misapplied Jackson. Pp. 127–134.

Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court decision on the applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It further examined issues of previous court decisions on jury instructions and the effectiveness of counsel.

NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, 558 U.S. 165 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Mobile–Sierra presumption does not depend on the identity of the complainant who seeks Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigation.

HOLLINGSWORTH et al. v. PERRY et al. on application for stay No. 09A648. Held: The trial’s broadcast is stayed. Applicants have made a sufficient showing of entitlement. There is a fair prospect that a majority of this Court will either grant certiorari and reverse the order below or grant mandamus, because the District Court likely violated 28 U. S.

Held: The trial court erred in closing voir dire without considering all reasonable alternatives to closure. Because the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to jury voir dire, Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.

Held: The Eleventh Circuit’s holding was in error under Cone v. Bell, 556 U. S. 449. “When a state court declines to review the merits of a peti tioner’s claim on the ground that it has done so already, it creates no bar to federal habeas review.” Id., at 466. On remand, the court must address Wellons’ entitlement to discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari granted; 554 F. 3d 923, vacated and remanded.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the statute that makes certain discretionary determinations of the attorney general immune to judicial review does not allow the attorney general to declare determinations discretionary and immune to review via regulations.

South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (2010), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States settled a dispute between the states of South Carolina and North Carolina regarding which parties may intervene in litigation between two states over water rights. By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that an interstate water authority and the Duke Energy Corporation could intervene, while ruling unanimously that the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, could not.

Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state court's conclusion that the petitioner's counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of his mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. The Court therefore denied the habeas corpus petition. Having thus disposed of the claim, the Court declined to decide the issues the petition raised about interpreting the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court about campaign finance law, in which the Court held that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion and all Republican-appointed justices concurring. All Democratic-appointed justices dissented.