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.

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.

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that generic drug manufactures cannot be held liable under state law for not adequately labeling medication when federal law prohibits them from changing the label from the original brand name drug.

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.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 569 of the United States Reports:

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that courts certifying classes must thoroughly vet prospective classes for all four requirements even if the court's analysis touches on the merits of the claim. The case restricted class certifications. The votes were split upon typical ideological lines, but, in an unusual move, the dissent was jointly written by two justices.

Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. 50 (2013), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that holds that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers. The unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, holds that law enforcement "employment" duties are not limited to searches, seizures of evidence, or arrests, and, as such, the petitioner can sue. As this case revolved around sovereign immunity waivers and not the merits, the Court did not decide upon the merits of the lawsuits.

Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that, because the respondent had no personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants nor any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness, her suit was appropriately dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when someone seeks equitable relief to enforce an ERISA plan, the terms of the plans govern but equitable doctrines can fill gaps in the terms.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States. The Court did not rule out the possibility of corporate liability if the presumption against extraterritoriality could be overcome by acts that sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States. Lower court decisions were divided. After the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Jesner v.

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.

Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled in a 7–2 decision that "social sharing of a small amount of marijuana" by a legal immigrant does not constitute aggravated felony and so does not require mandatory deportation.

McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld Virginia's and all states' right to restrict citizen requests for state government documents to citizens of that state.

Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal laws deregulating the transportation industry do not invalidate corresponding state provisions that regulate the seizure, storage, and sale of cars by towing companies. Robert Pelkey sued Dan's City Used Cars under New Hampshire law for unlawfully selling his vehicle. A lower court raised doubts as to whether the New Hampshire statute was valid at all, as Dan's City argued it was pre-empted by federal deregulation law, specifically, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, and the case eventually arrived before the Supreme Court.

Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., 569 U.S. 267 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the term "defalcation" in the Bankruptcy Code includes a scienter requirement involving knowledge of, or gross recklessness in respect to, the improper nature of the fiduciary behavior.

Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. The case arose after Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer, bought transgenic soybean crop seeds from a local grain elevator for his second crop of the season. Monsanto originally sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting.

City of Arlington v. Federal Communications Commission, 569 U.S. 290 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that courts must apply the Chevron framework to an agency's interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency's statutory authority (i.e., its jurisdiction).

PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 569 U.S. 329 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a foreign tax is creditable against United States income taxes when the tax would be an income, war profits, or excess profits tax if it had been enacted in the United States.

Metrish v. Lancaster, 569 U.S. 351 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Michigan Court of Appeals' rejection of a due-process habeas claim was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's criminal retroactivity case law. The Supreme Court analyzed the case under Bouie v. City of Columbia and Rogers v. Tennessee.

Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U.S. 369 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an untimely National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act petition may qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for its claim.

McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that judges may review new evidence of actual innocence presented after AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. This exception is called the "innocence gateway".

Trevino v. Thaler, 569 US 413, was a 2013 United States Supreme Court decision that applied the narrow exception to Coleman v. Thompson's rule recognized by Martinez v. Ryan to excuse ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims that were procedurally defaulted under Texas state law. Martinez recognized a right to counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding where state law did not allow ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims to be raised until post-conviction proceedings because there is no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings.

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a buccal swab to harvest an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and, therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U.S. 483 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court unanimously ruled that a Virginia statute revoking beneficiary status for spouses whose marital status has changed was pre-empted by the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (1954).

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ("Horne I"); 576 U.S. 351 (2015) ("Horne II"), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case arose out of a dispute involving the National Raisin Reserve, when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market. In Horne I, the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause. In Horne II, the Court held that the National Raisin Reserve was an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause.

Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Ex Post Facto Clause is violated when a defendant is sentenced under a version of the United States Federal Sentencing Guideliness promulgated after he committed his criminal acts and the new version provides a higher sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense.

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under the limited judicial review allowed for decisions from binding arbitration, the sole question is whether the arbitrator arguably interpreted the parties' contract, not whether the arbitrator erred.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case, which decided that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated." However, the Court allowed patenting of complementary DNA, which contains exactly the same protein-coding base pair sequence as the natural DNA, albeit with introns removed.

United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, when a federal judge participates in the plea process in violation of Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a guilty plea need not be vacated if the record shows prejudice to the decision to plea due to Rule 11(h).

Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oklahoma statutes forbidding the export of water from the state are not preempted or forbidden by the Red River Compact.

American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S. 641 (2013), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that certain regulations imposed by City of Los Angeles on trucking companies were preempted by federal law. In 2006 the Board of Harbor Commissioners for Los Angeles, California adopted an environmental protection plan that included an effort called Clean Truck Program (CTP). The stated goal of the program is to "reduce negative impacts that port [trucking] inflicts on the local community." The implementation of this program began in 2007 and required trucking companies to comply with various requirements relating to maintenance of trucks, employment of drivers, and trucking operations.

Ryan v. Valencia Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (2013), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a defendant on death row did not need to be held competent during federal habeas corpus proceedings.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an unconditional and irrevocable commitment not to enforce a trademark against the defendant in an action moots that action over the defendant's objection that the trademark is invalid.

Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (2013), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The case was argued on November 6, 2012, and decided on January 9, 2013.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a vessel in admiralty law is something that a reasonable observer would consider designed for water transportation. The case arose from an in rem suit brought under admiralty jurisdiction by the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, against a floating home owned by resident Fane Lozman. Lozman argued that the floating home, which had no means by which to propel itself, was not a vessel under the Rules of Construction Act and thus not subject to admiralty jurisdiction. The Court resolved a circuit split as to what it means for a vessel to be "capable" of transportation by creating the reasonable observer standard, ruling in Lozman's favor.