Volume 560 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 560 of the United States Reports:

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses.

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. The practice, introduced by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law's constitutionality, because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court.

Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 987 So. 2d 83. Bryan A. Stevenson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Aaryn M. Urell and Alicia A. D’Addario. Scott D. Makar, Solicitor General of Florida, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Bill Mc- Collum, Attorney General, Louis F. Hubener, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, and Timothy D. Osterhaus, Craig D. Feiser, Courtney Brewer, and Ronald A.

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the ability of teams in the National Football League to conspire for purposes of a violation of §1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that employers can be sued any time they use results from employment-eligibility tests that rule out disproportionate numbers of marginalized groups. The plaintiff does not need to challenge the rule at the time of its adoption.

United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when used by the prosecution to obtain a mandatory minimum sentence, the fact that a firearm was a machine gun is an element to be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not a sentencing factor to be proved to the judge at sentencing.

Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a fee claimant need not be a "prevailing party" to be eligible for an attorney's fees award under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Only some degree of success on the merits is required.

United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an appellate court may reverse a conviction based on a plain error raised for the first time on appeal when there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the trial's outcome. Here, the lower court reversed because there was "any possibility", however remote, that this had happened. According to the Supreme Court, the proper plain error test requires the appellant to show that (1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious; (3) the error affected the appellant's substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Held: The Eleventh Circuit erred in failing to consider whether any of § 2254(d)’s other exceptions apply in this case.

Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether Muhammad Ali Samatar, prime minister of Somalia (during the dictatorship of Siad Barre) from 1987 to 1990, could be sued in United States courts for allegedly overseeing killings and other atrocities. Samatar then lived in Virginia, and some of his victims had sued him under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991.

Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010), was an original jurisdiction United States Supreme Court case. It arose from a disagreement between the state of North Carolina and the other members of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact over the funding for a joint project. Eight states had formed the compact in 1983 to manage low-level radioactive waste in the southeastern United States. In 1986, North Carolina was chosen as the location for the regional waste facility, and it asked the other states for funding to help with the project. The project stalled and was eventually shut down, despite North Carolina receiving $80 million from the other states.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them. The mere act of remaining silent is not sufficient to imply the suspect has invoked their rights even when the suspect actually intended their silence to have that effect. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence can be construed as waiving the right to remain silent. The Court was split, 5–4. The dissent, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that Miranda v.

Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 560 U.S. 413 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under the comity doctrine, a taxpayer's complaint of allegedly discriminatory state taxation must proceed originally in state court even when the complaint is framed as a request to increase a competitor's tax burden.

Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which criminalizes interstate travel for sex offenders who do not register as a sex offender in the other state, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before SORNA's effective date.

Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that prisoners incarcerated in federal prisons are entitled to up to 54 days of "good time credits" for every year they are incarcerated, allowing federal inmates to reduce their sentence by up to 54 days per year of imprisonment for exhibiting good behavior. The case concerned how the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons should calculate "good time credits": whether they should be calculated based on the length of the sentence levied by the judge, or by the time actually served by the inmate.

Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when a bankruptcy court calculates a debtor's projected disposable income, the court may account for changes in the debtor's income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation.

Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party's knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading.

Decided June 7, 2010 When respondent was 15, he admitted to engaging in sexual acts with a child under 12, was adjudged delinquent under… Held: Because respondent’s juvenile-supervision term has ended, and he thus is no longer subject to his supervision’s sex-offender-registration conditions, his case will be moot unless he can show that a decision invalidating those conditions would be sufficiently likely to redress “col lateral consequences adequate to meet Article III’s…

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the term "aggravated felonies" in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43) does not mean "any conduct punishable as a felony." Moreover, an immigration court cannot enhance the state offense of record after the conviction just because facts known to the immigration court would have authorized a greater penalty.

Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the government can reduce the fee award due to a person who has successfully sued the government to cover that person's preexisting debts to the government.

Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a sentencing court that misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution where that court made clear prior to the deadline's expiration that it would order restitution.

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases.

The Taft-Hartley Act increased the size of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) from three members to five, see 29 U. S. C. § 153(a), and amended § 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act to… Held: Section 3(b) requires that a delegee group maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board. Pp. 679–688.

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.

Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace. It was an appeal by the city of Ontario, California, from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that it had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of two of its police officers when it disciplined them following an audit of pager text messages that discovered many of those messages were personal in nature, some sexually explicit. The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. 770 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when the Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to exempt a dollar value corresponding to specific property from seizure by creditors, claiming the full anticipated dollar value of the property does not exempt the property from seizure if the true dollar value of the property is greater than anticipated. Additionally, the bankruptcy trustee representing the bankruptcy estate does not need to object to the anticipated valuation to preserve the ability to seize and auction the property, giving the claimed dollar value to the debtor.

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when a defendant receives a resentencing hearing after the Sentencing Guidelines have changed in their favor, the updated Guidelines are binding on the district court at resentencing, even though the court could treat them as merely advisory if it was sentencing the defendant for the first time.