Volume 564 — United States Reports

Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote that vehicle flight requires officers to give chase, resulting in more injuries on average than burglary. Dissenting, Justice Scalia criticized the majority for producing an ad hoc judgment based on vague legislation, suggesting they should declare the residual clause of the law unconstitutionally vague. The court would follow that advice several years later in Johnson v. United States and declare the residual clause unconstitutionally vague.

Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U.S. 50 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations in a dispute with AT&T. The case was consolidated with Isiogu v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co..

DePierre v. United States, 564 U.S. 70 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of the term "cocaine base" in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) refers to cocaine in its chemically basic form. The decision of the Court was unanimous, except with respect to Part III–A.

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It deals with the presumption of validity and the standard of evidence in patent lawsuits. This case in widely considered as a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit by a patent troll, underscoring the need for a reform of the US patent law.

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under the terms of this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant.

Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a service provider cannot be held liable in a private action under SEC Rule 10b-5.

United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the fiduciary exception to attorney–client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and Indian tribes.

Flores-Villar v. United States, 564 U.S. 210 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the precedent set by Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), which upheld a law imposing different requirements in situations regarding children born out of wedlock to U.S. citizen fathers versus U.S. citizen mothers. Flores-Villar attempted to challenge the gender discrimination between these requirements, but was ultimately unsuccessful, as the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision with a 4-4 split, leaving the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling in place without setting a binding precedent.

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011), is a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that people, just like states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law.

Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States "[held] that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule". This simply means that if law enforcement officers conduct a search in a reasonable manner with respect to established legal precedent any evidence found may not be excluded from trial based on the exclusionary rule.

J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that age and mental status are relevant when determining police custody for Miranda purposes, overturning its prior ruling from seven years before. J. D. B. was a 13-year-old student enrolled in special education classes whom police had suspected of committing two robberies. A police investigator visited J. D. B. at school, where he was interrogated by the investigator, a uniformed police officer, and school officials. J. D. B. subsequently confessed to his crimes and was convicted. J. D. B. was not given a Miranda warning during the interrogation, nor an opportunity to contact his legal guardian. During the trial, attempts to suppress the statements given by J. D. B.

Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal courts cannot issue orders to prevent state courts from issuing class certifications.

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal court cannot give a criminal defendant a longer sentence to promote rehabilitation.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class action for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores.

Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the public concern test limits Petition Clause claims by public employees. More specifically, state and local government employees may not sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment when they petition the government on matters of private concern. To show that an employer interfered with rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, an employee must show that his speech related to a matter of public concern. The court held that this test also applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, relating to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that Turner was not entitled to a public defender in cases regarding family nonsupport. However, in cases in which a state is not required to provide counsel, it must provide some other safeguard to reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty in civil contempt cases. The particular case the Court took under review was a child support payment case and the point of contention was the process of the defendant's income determination by the court.

Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court (i.e., courts without full judicial independence) lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor's proof of claim, even though Congress purported to grant such statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)2(C). The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was the estate of former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall). Smith died in 2007, before the Court decided the case, which her estate lost.

Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when a criminal defendant pleads guilty under a plea deal and the judge imposes the recommended sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant is eligible to have their sentence reduced if the Guidelines later change. Freeman was a plurality decision, so the controlling law is the narrowest point of agreement between five of the justices. In this case, that point comes from Sotomayor's solo concurrence, in which she argued that the convicted defendant could only have their sentence reduced if the plea deal they accepted explicitly stated that it was based on the Sentencing Guidelines.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal regulations govern what gets put on drug labels for generic drugs, so generic drug manufacturers cannot be sued for damages under state laws that punish a failure to warn.

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause. The case follows a line of decisions, including Crawford v. Washington (2004) and Davis v.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Federal Employers Liability Act makes a railroad liable if the railroad's negligence plays any part in bringing about the injury; it does not follow proximate-cause standards developed by courts outside of statutory contexts.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that struck down a 2005 California law banning the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision. In a 7–2 decision, the Court affirmed the lower court decisions and nullified the law, ruling that video games were protected speech under the First Amendment as other forms of media.

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that a court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that has not purposefully availed itself of doing business in the jurisdiction or placed goods in the stream of commerce in the expectation they would be purchased in the jurisdiction.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the connection between Goodyear and its subsidiaries with the state of North Carolina was not strong enough to establish general personal jurisdiction over the companies.

Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.