576 U.S.
Volume 576 — United States Reports
21 opinions
- 576 U.S. 1Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)Held federal statute unconstitutionalSupreme Court of the United States
Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the president, as head of the executive branch, has exclusive power to recognize formally a foreign sovereign and its territorial boundaries; as such, Congress may not require the State Department to indicate in passports that Jerusalem is part of Israel.
- 576 U.S. 86Kerry v. Din (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.
- 576 U.S. 121Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. 121 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Section 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit bankruptcy courts to award attorney's fees for work performed while defending fee applications.
- 576 U.S. 143Reyes Mata v. Lynch (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.
- 576 U.S. 155Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages.
- 576 U.S. 186McFadden v. United States (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that section 841 of the Controlled Substances Act requires the government to prove that to be in criminal violation, a defendant must be aware that an analogue defined by the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act with which he was dealing was a controlled substance.
- 576 U.S. 200Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.
- 576 U.S. 237Ohio v. Clark (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015), is United States Supreme Court case opinion that narrowed the standard set in Crawford v. Washington for determining whether hearsay statements in criminal cases are permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio on June 18, 2015. The Court held that the out-of-court statements were admissible because the primary purpose was not to create evidence. Citing a prior related case, Michigan v. Bryant, the Court formulated this test as one asking "whether a statement was given with the 'primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.'"
- 576 U.S. 257Davis v. Ayala (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial.
- 576 U.S. 305Brumfield v. Cain (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that because Brumfield satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)’s requirements, he was entitled to have his Atkins v. Virginia claim considered on the merits in federal court.
- 576 U.S. 351Horne v. Department of Agriculture (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorizes the Sec- retary of Agriculture to promulgate “marketing orders” to help main- tain stable markets for particular agricultural products. Held: The Fifth Amendment requires that the Government pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property.
- 576 U.S. 389Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that a pretrial detainee must prove only that force used by police is excessive according to an objective standard, not that a police officer was subjectively aware that the force used was unreasonable.
- 576 U.S. 409Los Angeles v. Patel (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a 90-day period, is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.
- 576 U.S. 446Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2014)Supreme Court of the United States
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015), is a significant decision of the United States Supreme Court for several reasons. One is that the Court turned back a considerable amount of academic criticism of both the patent misuse doctrine as developed by the Supreme Court and the particular legal principle at issue in the case. Another is that the Court firmly rejected efforts to assimilate the patent misuse doctrine to antitrust law and explained in some detail the different policies at work in the two bodies of law. Finally, the majority and dissenting opinions informatively articulate two opposing views of the proper role of the doctrine of stare decisis in US law. The narrow issue in Kimble v.
- 576 U.S. 473King v. Burwell (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.
- 576 U.S. 519Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, the Court held that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but that such claims require a plaintiff to prove it is the defendant's policies that cause a disparity.
- 576 U.S. 591Johnson v. United States (2015)Held federal statute unconstitutionalSupreme Court of the United States
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled the Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and in violation of due process.
- 576 U.S. 644Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)Altered precedentSupreme Court of the United States
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ( OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas under U.S. sovereignty to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.
Overruled Baker v. Nelson (1972) - 576 U.S. 743Michigan v. EPA (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.
- 576 U.S. 787Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission. In doing so, the Court expressly rejected a nascent version of the independent state legislature theory.
- 576 U.S. 863Glossip v. Gross (2015)Supreme Court of the United States
Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.