United States Reports

McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving a First Amendment challenge to the validity of a Massachusetts law establishing 35-foot (11 m) fixed buffer zones around facilities where abortions were performed.

2. Whether the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess.

Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided by the Court in 2018, Janus v AFSCME, overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the one-year period in which the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a parent with an automatic return remedy cannot be equitably tolled.

BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a court of the United States that is reviewing an arbitration award made under a treaty should interpret and apply "threshold" provisions concerning arbitration using the framework developed for interpreting similar provisions in ordinary contracts.

Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that convicting someone for aiding and abetting requires the prosecution to prove conduct extending to some part of the crime and intent extending to the whole crime.

Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement. Therefore, when a railroad abandons such a right-of-way, the easement disappears, and the land owner regains unburdened use of the land.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by Justice Scalia in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., 572 U.S. 141 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that severance payments to employees who are involuntarily terminated during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding are taxable wages under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2014. The Court held that under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9), a federal statute which prohibits possession of firearms by someone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a conviction does not have to involve the use of violent force to qualify for this prohibition. Instead, the Court concluded that a crime qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" so long as the amount of force used to commit the crime was sufficient to support a conviction for common-law battery.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to all national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts a state-law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it seeks to enlarge the contractual obligations that the parties voluntarily adopt.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck.

White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the rejection of the requested jury instruction in this case was not objectively unreasonable or contrary to clearly established law, so the defendant did not satisfy the requirements for seeking habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, the government or the victim must establish a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages. The decision vacated the appellate court decision, and remanded it. A legislative fix was subsequently proposed by Marci Hamilton. Ultimately, the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 was introduced in response.

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Clean Air Act does not require that states be given a second opportunity to file a state implementation plan after the Environmental Protection Agency has quantified interstate pollution obligations under a reasonable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision.

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), is one of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued on April 29, 2014 regarding patent lawsuit fee-shifting (the other case being Highmark v. Allcare Health). The Supreme Court essentially made it easier for courts to make the loser pay for all attorney costs if the lawsuit is regarded as frivolous. In other words, "the Supreme Court's decision grants judges more leeway to crack down on baseless claims." The decision is particularly relevant for the so-called patent trolls, which "will have to add a new variable to their calculations before pursuing a marginal lawsuit over their intellectual property: the other side's legal fees." The decision was unanimous, with the opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Town of Greece, New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer. The plaintiffs were Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They argued that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town, and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue.

Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when resolving questions of qualified immunity at summary judgment, a court must take all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, including whether a constitutional right was clearly established.

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held 6-3 that the equitable defense of laches is not available to copyright defendants in claims for damages.

Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bright-line IQ threshold requirement for determining whether someone has an intellectual disability (formerly mental retardation) is unconstitutional in deciding whether they are eligible for the death penalty.

Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case holding secret service officers who moved protesters away from the president were protected by qualified immunity. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. The case arose out of a campaign stop President George W. Bush made during the 2004 presidential campaign. Prior to the campaign event, Bush dined at a restaurant near where a group of supporters and a group of protesters had gathered. Two secret service agents directed local police to move the protesters to protect the president. The protesters sued the agents in the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon. The agents filed a motion to dismiss which was eventually granted based upon the Supreme Court's decision.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case examining whether a federal court has jurisdiction over activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act but takes place off Indian lands, and, if so, whether tribal sovereign immunity prevents a state from suing in federal court. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the State of Michigan's suit against Bay Mills is barred by tribal immunity.

Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether international arms control agreements may regulate local crime. More specifically, it found that an attack committed by the petitioner, Carol Anne Bond, involving dangerous toxicants, was not usage of a chemical weapon under section 229(a)(1) of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA), a law passed to bring the United States into compliance with the namesake treaty. The case followed up on a 2011 opinion of the same name involving the same parties. Bond had been convicted of using a chemical weapon after she was caught spreading a mixture of toxic substances around her best friend's home, having learned of an affair between her and Bond's husband.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015), is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps (so-called divided infringement).

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim.

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined whether a class-action suit was properly removed to federal district court as a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court unanimously determined (Justice Sotomayor delivering the court's opinion) that since the state of Mississippi was the sole plaintiff in the lawsuit, the case did not constitute a mass action for the purposes of the Act. The case turned on a question of statutory construction. The Act defined a mass action as 'any civil action ... in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact'.

Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers, 571 U.S. 177 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that any judgment on the merits is a final decision, even if there are outstanding questions about the accounting of a compensatory award or attorney's fees.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States that deals with civil procedure, and specifically with the question of the burden of proof required in pursuing declaratory judgments.

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court held that a defendant cannot be liable for penalty enhancement under the penalty enhancement provision of the Controlled Substances Act unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury, at least when the use of a drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim's death or serious bodily injury.

Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that time spent donning and doffing protective gear is time spent "changing clothes," so the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 allows unions and employers to agree that workers will not be paid for that time.

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 571 U.S. 237 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, airlines and their employees are immune from civil liability for reporting suspicious behavior so long as the reporting statements are "materially true."

Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, its relationship with the defendant must arise out of contacts that the defendant created with the forum; the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.

Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (2014), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that explored the limits of Georgia v. Randolph, a 2006 case that held that consent to search a dwelling is invalid in the presence of an objecting co-resident. Fernandez, however, held that when the objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes (such as lawful arrest), the remaining resident may validly consent to search.

Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury's determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged when challenging the legality of a pre-trial asset seizure.

United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a "military installation" for purposes of determining whether someone has trespassed after being ordered to leave by a commanding officer encompasses the commanding officer's entire area of responsibility, and it includes areas within the base where the public may visit through easements.

Chadbourne & Parke, LLP v. Troice, 571 U.S. 377 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act does not preclude civil class actions under state law.

Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014), is a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States that describes the extent of the powers of bankruptcy courts in dealing with the bad faith of debtors.

Lawson v. FMR, LLC, 571 U.S. 429 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Sarbanes–Oxley Act grants whistleblower protection to employees of public companies and also to employees of a public company's private contractors and subcontractors.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 571 of the United States Reports:

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.

Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a state court makes a factual determination the federal courts must defer to its judgment so long as it is reasonable.

United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. 31 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed whether district courts have jurisdiction regarding provisions of the Internal Revenue Service Code and its implementation. The court held unanimously that a district court has jurisdiction in the application of the Internal Revenues Service Code to a partnership-level proceeding when it is applied to that partnership. The court additionally found that a transaction determined to lack economic substance can still trigger the penalty for overstatement because the overstatement and the action that led to it are inherently tied together.

Atlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the enforcement of forum selection clauses.

Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which a unanimous Court held that federal court abstention under the Younger v. Harris doctrine is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. The case involved a dispute between Sprint Corporation and Windstream Communications.

Kansas v. Cheever, 571 U.S. 87 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the prosecution from introducing psychiatric evidence to rebut psychiatric evidence presented by the defense.

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 571 U.S. 99 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case. In this case, the court considered whether the agreed-upon limitations period for filing a legal objection to long-term disability denial began when the claim was filed or the claim received a final denial. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled the agreed-upon limitations period is neither too short nor is there a statute that prevents it from taking effect, as such the courts are bound to enforce the limitations period and its start date as written in the coverage plan.