United States Reports

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that officials may strip-search people who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the people to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the person is carrying contraband.

Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a witness in a grand-jury proceeding is entitled to the same absolute immunity from suit under Section 1983 as a witness who testifies at trial.

Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a private contractor temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under Section 1983.

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 566 U.S. 399 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a generic manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand's patent as covering a particular method of using a drug.

Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that there are no limitations on a plaintiff's ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding other than those in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (2012) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, applies exclusively to natural persons and does not impose liability against any organizational entity.

Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a court abuses its discretion if it raises a timeliness objection on its own after the State deliberately waived a statute of limitations defense.

United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 566 U.S. 478 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that overstating the value of property sold in order to understate the profit made from the sale does not trigger the extended statute of limitations for the IRS to challenge the seller's tax forms.

Hall v. United States, 566 U.S. 506 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal income tax liability resulting from a post-petition farm sale is not "incurred by the estate" under §503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in a Chapter 12 bankruptcy plan.

Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541 (2012), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that children conceived after a parent's death are not entitled to Social Security Survivors benefits if the laws in the state that the parent's will was signed in forbid it. The case was a unanimous decision.

Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a person who wins their case and is awarded legal costs cannot be awarded costs for document translation under the Court Interpreters Act. The court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of "interpreter" is someone who translates orally from one language to another, so the category "compensation of interpreters" in the Court Interpreters Act does not include the cost of document translation.

Holder v. Gutierrez (consolidated with Holder v. Sawyers), 566 U.S. 583 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals's position that a non-citizen seeking cancellation of a deportation order must individually satisfy lawful permanent resident status requirements rather than relying on a parent's years of that status is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.

Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 566 U.S. 624 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that to establish a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons. That statute prohibits a loan servicer from charge or accept money from fee splits that are not attached to actual services rendered to the person seeking the loan.

RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Chapter 11 cramdown plan may not be confirmed if it provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of a bank's lien but does not permit the bank to credit-bid at the sale.

Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit for allegedly violating a constitutional right if, at the time of an arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to the alleged rights violation.

Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that declining to refund people who had paid a lump sum instead of installments into a city program was rationally related to lowering administrative costs, so it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court held that a witness's statements are "plainly material" under Brady v. Maryland when they are the only evidence linking the defendant to the crime. Therefore, the prosecution was required to turn over the information during discovery.

CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that because the Credit Repair Organizations Act is silent on whether claims can proceed in an arbitrable forum, the Federal Arbitration Act requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms.

Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions—providing both significant deterrence and compensation—no Bivens remedy can be implied.

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 2253(c)(3) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule. A certificate of appealability's failure to "indicate" a constitutional issue does not deprive a Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. For a person incarcerated by a state who does not seek review in that state's highest court, the judgment becomes "final" for purposes of AEDPA's Section 2244(d)(1)(A) on the date that the time for seeking such review expires.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to religious organizations' selection of religious leaders.

Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act extends coverage for injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf to an employee who can establish a substantial nexus between his injury and his employer's extractive operations on the Shelf.

Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of eyewitness identifications.

Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court ruling in which the Court ruled 7–2 that Cory R. Maples, who had been convicted of murdering two people and faced a possible death sentence, should get another opportunity in court because his lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell had abandoned him.

Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012), was a US Supreme Court case that dealt with copyright and the public domain. It held that the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain.

Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Reynolds v. United States 565 U.S. 432 (2012) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Pre-SORNA sex offenders are not obligated to register unless the Attorney General specifies applicability.

National Meat Association v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts a California statute relating to non-ambulatory animals.

Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "filing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206 qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the Government's revenue loss exceeds $10,000."

Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that an interrogation of a prisoner was not a custodial interrogation per se, and certainly it was not "clearly established federal law" that it was custodial, as would be required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Instead, the Court said, whether the interrogation was custodial depended on the specific circumstances, and moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not custodial (that is, he was not "in custody" in a way that was covered by the Miranda v. Arizona decision). This decision overturned the rule of the Sixth Circuit, and denied the prisoner's habeas corpus petition.

Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state officers are entitled to qualified immunity after seizing unrelated evidence from someone who was not under investigation when the error was not immediately apparent based on the text of the search warrant.

PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the equal-footing doctrine gives a state title to a segment of a river if that segment was navigable at the time the state enters the union; else, it remained in control of the federal government and could be sold by the government.

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, 565 U.S. 606 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court declined to make a firm decision. The plaintiffs in the case asserted that the Supremacy Clause gave them a private right to sue for the enforcement of the federal Medicaid law when a state Medicaid law conflicted with it. Due to changed circumstances while the appeal was ongoing, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration of whether a private Supremacy Clause challenge can be made when agency litigation is possible.

Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the state-law design-defect and failure-to-warn claims of this case fell within the field of locomotive equipment regulation preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, as that field was defined in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co..

Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when evaluating motions to substitute counsel in capital cases, courts should employ the same "interests of justice" standard that applies in non-capital cases.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which sets the standard of review for habeas corpus petitions brought in federal court to challenge state court convictions.

Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving deportation law and procedure. The case involved a rule adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals for determining the eligibility of certain long-term resident aliens, when they are facing deportation because of a prior criminal conviction, to apply to the Attorney General for relief. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court invalidated the BIA's "comparable-grounds rule" as arbitrary and capricious, holding that it had no rational relation to the merits of an alien's claim for remaining in the United States, nor to the policy and purposes of the immigration laws.

Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote that vehicle flight requires officers to give chase, resulting in more injuries on average than burglary. Dissenting, Justice Scalia criticized the majority for producing an ad hoc judgment based on vague legislation, suggesting they should declare the residual clause of the law unconstitutionally vague. The court would follow that advice several years later in Johnson v. United States and declare the residual clause unconstitutionally vague.

Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U.S. 50 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations in a dispute with AT&T. The case was consolidated with Isiogu v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co..

DePierre v. United States, 564 U.S. 70 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of the term "cocaine base" in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) refers to cocaine in its chemically basic form. The decision of the Court was unanimous, except with respect to Part III–A.

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It deals with the presumption of validity and the standard of evidence in patent lawsuits. This case in widely considered as a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit by a patent troll, underscoring the need for a reform of the US patent law.

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under the terms of this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant.

Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a service provider cannot be held liable in a private action under SEC Rule 10b-5.

United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the fiduciary exception to attorney–client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and Indian tribes.

Flores-Villar v. United States, 564 U.S. 210 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the precedent set by Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), which upheld a law imposing different requirements in situations regarding children born out of wedlock to U.S. citizen fathers versus U.S. citizen mothers. Flores-Villar attempted to challenge the gender discrimination between these requirements, but was ultimately unsuccessful, as the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision with a 4-4 split, leaving the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling in place without setting a binding precedent.

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011), is a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that people, just like states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law.

Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States "[held] that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule". This simply means that if law enforcement officers conduct a search in a reasonable manner with respect to established legal precedent any evidence found may not be excluded from trial based on the exclusionary rule.