United States Reports

Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. 145 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the 180-day statute of limitations for a hospital to appeal a final Medicare reimbursement is not jurisdictional, but it is also not subject to equitable tolling.

Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the appeal of a district court's decision to return a child to his country of residence is not precluded by the child's departure from the United States. It arose from the divorce proceedings of Mr. and Ms. Chafin; she wanted their daughter to live with her in Scotland, while he wanted her to remain in the United States with him.

Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented.

FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 568 U.S. 216 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state-action immunity does not apply when the state has not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed that its plan to enter the market will substantially lessen competition.

Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Harris was the first Supreme Court case to challenge the dog's reliability, backed by data that asserts that on average, up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong. Twenty-four U.S. States, the federal government, and two U.S. territories filed briefs in support of Florida as amici curiae. Oral argument in this case – and that of another dog sniff case, Florida v.

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013), is a US patent law case. The case dealt with the question of jurisdiction of patent law litigation in regard to attorney malpractice. In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that federal laws granting exclusive jurisdiction to cases involving patents does not preclude the ability of state courts to hear cases related to but not involving patents. The case was remanded to the Texas state courts for further proceedings.

Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held regardless of whether a legal question was settled or unsettled at the time of trial, an error is "plain" within the meaning of Rule 52(b) of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure so long as the error was plain at the time of appellate review.

Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, for purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant's claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.

Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person accused of a crime receives a directed acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second trial of that person for the same crime, even if the person was acquitted in error.

Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied.

Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not modify Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amnesty International USA and others lacked standing to challenge section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. § 1881a), as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the statute of limitations for filing civil penalty actions initiates when the offending act is committed or finished.

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a securities-fraud class action.

Levin v. United States, 568 U.S. 503 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Gonzalez Act abrogates the Federal Tort Claims Act's intentional tort exception and therefore permits a suit against the United States alleging medical battery by a Navy doctor acting within the scope of his employment.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6–3, that the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright of the works lawfully made or purchased abroad.

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a class-action plaintiff cannot defeat federal court jurisdiction by stipulating that they will not seek damages above the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 568 U.S. 597 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a provision of the Clean Water Act governing challenges to Environmental Protection Agency actions, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b), does not prohibit a citizen suit under Section 1365 when the suit is against an alleged violator and seeks to enforce an obligation imposed by the CWA or its regulations. The court also held that the case was not moot due to regulations issued in the interim. The case was consolidated with Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

Wos v. E.M.A., 568 U.S. 627 (2013) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal Medicaid statute's anti-lien provision preempts a state's irrebuttable statutory presumption that one-third of a tort recovery is attributable to medical expenses.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 568 of the United States Reports:

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property.

Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving federal employee grievance procedures under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The issue was whether a so-called "mixed case" involving both wrongful termination and discrimination claims should be appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board to a federal district court or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 567 of the United States Reports:

Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) was a United States Supreme Court case where it was ruled that having an expert witness testify on behalf of a third-party lab analyst does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as long as the results were not directed to prove guilt.

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court. It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay. The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States government, when it enters into a contract with a Native American Indian tribe for services, must pay contracts in full, even if Congress has not appropriated enough money to pay all tribal contractors. The case was litigated over a period of 22 years, beginning in 1990, until it was decided in 2012.

Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the United States waived sovereign immunity from the Native American nation's action under the Quiet Title Act. Also, the nation had prudential standing to challenge the acquisition of land by the Department of the Interior.

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's scheme for regulating speech is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court excused the broadcasters from paying fines levied for what the FCC had determined indecency, in a majority opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Supreme Court had previously issued an opinion in the case in 2009 addressing the nature of the fine itself, without addressing the restriction on indecent speech.

Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012), is a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that reduced mandatory minimum sentences for "crack cocaine" under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 does apply to defendants who committed a crime before the Act went into effect but who were sentenced after that date. The Act's silence on how to apply its new rules, before the effective date or not, caused a split among the Justices on how to interpret its new lenient provisions. Specifically, the case centered on Edward Dorsey, a prior offender who had been convicted of possession before the new rules came into effect, but was sentenced after the effective date.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5–4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.

Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012), was a Supreme Court decision that applied the rule set out in Apprendi v. New Jersey—that certain non-conviction elements of a crime must be proved to a jury—to criminal penalties. The 6–3 decision was authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. The ruling applied even to those persons who had committed murder as a juvenile, extending beyond Graham v. Florida (2010), which had ruled juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional for crimes excluding murder.

Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General, 2011 MT 328, is a decision by the Montana Supreme Court ruling that the broad free speech protections given to corporations in Citizens United v. FEC do not apply to Montana's campaign finance laws. The United States Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's decision in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567, U.S. 516 (2012), in a short, per curiam opinion issued without oral argument. The court wrote only that the legal issue had already been precluded by Citizens United, and this case offered no new arguments and failed to distinguish that prior decision.

(2) The individual mandate constitutionally functions as a tax, so it is valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.

United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. It had been passed by Congress as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have earned the medal in an attempt to protect the valor of legitimate recipients. A 6–3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional and violated the free speech protections under the First Amendment. Despite reaffirming the opinion that was previously issued by the Ninth Circuit, it could not agree on a single rationale.

Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission, 567 U.S. 758 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that although West Virginia could have adopted a plan with lower variations in population among the districts, the state carried its burden to show that population deviations were necessary to achieve legitimate state objectives, such as avoiding contests between incumbents and not splitting political subdivisions.

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) was a United States Supreme Court case that created a small exception to a previous ruling, Coleman v. Thompson. Normally, if a prisoner misses a deadline to file an appeal under state law, federal courts cannot review their case—even if their lawyer made a mistake. Coleman had ruled that ineffective assistance of counsel during appeals does not excuse this kind of procedural default.

Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that suits under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993's self-care provision are barred by sovereign immunity. The act allows an employee to take up to 12 weeks off of work to deal with their own serious health condition. However, in this case, a person could not sue the government for an alleged violation of this on gender-discrimination grounds because nobody can sue the government for a violation of that part of the law at all.

Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.

Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., 566 U.S. 93 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an employee is "newly awarded compensation" when they first become disabled and thereby become statutorily entitled to benefits, no matter whether, or when, a compensation order issues on their behalf.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I (to distinguish it from the 2023 case), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Missouri v. Galin E. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that attorneys of criminal defendants have the duty to communicate plea bargains offered to the accused.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy. Anthony Cooper was charged by the State of Michigan with assault with intent to murder and three other offenses.

Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that a dispute about passport regulation was not a political question and thus resolvable by the US court system. Specifically, Zivotofsky's parents sought to have his passport read "Jerusalem, Israel", rather than "Jerusalem", as his place of birth. The State Department had rejected that request under a longstanding policy that took no stance on the legal status of Jerusalem. Zivotofsky's parents then sued, citing a Congressional law that ordered the Secretary of State to list people born in Jerusalem as born in Israel. In Zivotofsky v.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the limitation period for insider trading claims. The court ruled in an 8-0 unanimous opinion that the limitation period was subject to traditional equitable tolling. Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from the case.

Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal district court has discretion to order that a defendant's federal sentence run consecutively to an anticipated state sentence that has not yet been imposed.

Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas and was thus unconstitutional.

Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "actual damages" under the Privacy Act of 1974 is not clear enough to allow damages for suits for mental and emotional distress. The reasoning behind this is that the United States Congress, when authorizing suit against the government, must be clear in waiving the government's sovereign immunity.