Volume 561 — United States Reports

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), was a case decided in June 2010 by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Patriot Act's prohibition on providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). The case, petitioned by United States Attorney General Eric Holder, represents one of only two times in First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has overcome strict scrutiny. The other is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled against the Humanitarian Law Project, which sought to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey and Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam learn how to resolve conflicts peacefully.

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine whether the agreement is enforceable, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge. However, if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator.

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, when a cargo shipment begins overseas, portions of the trip when the goods are traveling over land by train are governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, not the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.

Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extraterritorial effect of U.S. securities legislation. Morrison extinguished two species of securities class-action claims that had proliferated in preceding years: "foreign-cubed" claims, in which foreign plaintiffs sued foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges, and "foreign-squared" claims, brought by domestic plaintiffs against foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges.

Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 287 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, when a state prisoner obtains federal habeas corpus relief and is re-sentenced, a habeas application challenging the new judgment is not a "second or successive" challenge even if the prisoner could have challenged the original sentence on the same ground.

Petitioner Magwood was sentenced to death for murder. After the Ala bama courts denied relief on direct appeal and in postconviction pro ceedings, he sought federal habeas relief. Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 555 F. 3d 968, reversed and remanded.

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The case involves former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and the honest services fraud statute, which prohibits "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services". The Court found the statute vague, meaning it was written in a manner that almost anyone could be convicted of the statute by engaging in most legal activities. However, the Court refused to void the statute as unconstitutionally vague. The Court decided to limit the application of the statute only to defendants who hold a fiduciary duty and they participate in bribery and kickback schemes.

Black v. United States, 561 U.S. 465 (2010), is a white-collar criminal law case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with businessman Conrad Black's fraud trial. Along with two companion cases—Skilling v. United States and Weyhrauch v. United States—it dealt with the honest services provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1346.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that laws enabling inferior officers of the United States to be insulated from the Presidential removal authority with two levels of "for cause" removal violated Article Two of the United States Constitution.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of an application for a patent on a method of hedging losses in one segment of the energy industry by making investments in other segments of that industry, on the basis that the abstract investment strategy set forth in the application was not patentable subject matter.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, the policy of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, governing official recognition of student groups, which required the groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Held: The postconviction trial court erred in its prejudice analysis. First, it curtailed a more probing prejudice inquiry because it placed undue reliance on the assumed reasonableness of counsel’s mitigation theory.