Volume 570 — United States Reports

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.

Respondent attorneys submitted several state Freedom of Information Act requests to the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) seeking names and addresses of thousands of individuals in… Held: An attorney's solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose cov- ered by the (b)(4) litigation exception. Pp. 57–78.

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that, in line with Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), all facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence for a criminal offense must be submitted to and found true by a jury, not merely determined to be true at a judge's discretion. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.

Salinas v. Texas, 570 US 178 (2013), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause does not extend to defendants who simply choose to remain silent during questioning, even though no arrest has been made nor the Miranda rights read to a defendant.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013), also known as AOSI I (to distinguish it from the 2020 case), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated the First Amendment.

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228 (2013), ("Italian Colors") is a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2013.

Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified standards for evaluating potential prior offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). In an 8–1 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court held that judges may only look at the statutory elements of a crime, rather than the facts associated with that particular crime, "when the crime of which the defendant was convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements." In his review of the case for SCOTUSblog, Daniel Richman opined that following the Court's decision, "[w]hether or not a prior conviction is going to 'count' will have to be determined as mechanically as possible."

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I (to distinguish it from the 2016 case), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013), was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving the standard of proof required for a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and on common law principles of tort law, the plaintiff was required to show that a retaliatory motive was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action.

United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in a 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor. The case was important because it resolved a dispute between several different circuits.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires manufactur- ers to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before mar- keting any brand-name or generic drug in interstate commerce.… Held: State-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug's warnings are pre-empted by federal law under PLIVA. Pp. 479–493. (a) Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that confict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746.

Held: The Ninth Circuit's failure to issue the mandate constituted an abuse of discretion.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4, which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of racial discrimination in voting.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (2013), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American biological fathers who are not custodians of a Native American child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child has never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Native American family also does not apply, nor is the preferred placement of the child in another Native American family required when no other party has formally sought to adopt the child.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that reinstated same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v.

Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding extortion under the Hobbs Act of 1946.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.