United States Reports

J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that age and mental status are relevant when determining police custody for Miranda purposes, overturning its prior ruling from seven years before. J. D. B. was a 13-year-old student enrolled in special education classes whom police had suspected of committing two robberies. A police investigator visited J. D. B. at school, where he was interrogated by the investigator, a uniformed police officer, and school officials. J. D. B. subsequently confessed to his crimes and was convicted. J. D. B. was not given a Miranda warning during the interrogation, nor an opportunity to contact his legal guardian. During the trial, attempts to suppress the statements given by J. D. B.

Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal courts cannot issue orders to prevent state courts from issuing class certifications.

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal court cannot give a criminal defendant a longer sentence to promote rehabilitation.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class action for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores.

Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the public concern test limits Petition Clause claims by public employees. More specifically, state and local government employees may not sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment when they petition the government on matters of private concern. To show that an employer interfered with rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, an employee must show that his speech related to a matter of public concern. The court held that this test also applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, relating to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that Turner was not entitled to a public defender in cases regarding family nonsupport. However, in cases in which a state is not required to provide counsel, it must provide some other safeguard to reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty in civil contempt cases. The particular case the Court took under review was a child support payment case and the point of contention was the process of the defendant's income determination by the court.

Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court (i.e., courts without full judicial independence) lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor's proof of claim, even though Congress purported to grant such statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)2(C). The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was the estate of former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall). Smith died in 2007, before the Court decided the case, which her estate lost.

Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when a criminal defendant pleads guilty under a plea deal and the judge imposes the recommended sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant is eligible to have their sentence reduced if the Guidelines later change. Freeman was a plurality decision, so the controlling law is the narrowest point of agreement between five of the justices. In this case, that point comes from Sotomayor's solo concurrence, in which she argued that the convicted defendant could only have their sentence reduced if the plea deal they accepted explicitly stated that it was based on the Sentencing Guidelines.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal regulations govern what gets put on drug labels for generic drugs, so generic drug manufacturers cannot be sued for damages under state laws that punish a failure to warn.

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause. The case follows a line of decisions, including Crawford v. Washington (2004) and Davis v.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Federal Employers Liability Act makes a railroad liable if the railroad's negligence plays any part in bringing about the injury; it does not follow proximate-cause standards developed by courts outside of statutory contexts.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that struck down a 2005 California law banning the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision. In a 7–2 decision, the Court affirmed the lower court decisions and nullified the law, ruling that video games were protected speech under the First Amendment as other forms of media.

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that a court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that has not purposefully availed itself of doing business in the jurisdiction or placed goods in the stream of commerce in the expectation they would be purchased in the jurisdiction.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the connection between Goodyear and its subsidiaries with the state of North Carolina was not strong enough to establish general personal jurisdiction over the companies.

Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 563 of the United States Reports:

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a plaintiff can state a claim for securities fraud under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2010), based on a pharmaceutical company's failure to disclose reports of adverse events associated with a product if the reports do not find statistically significant evidence that the adverse effects may be caused by the use of the product.

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training.

Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 563 U.S. 110 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that medical providers, as third-party beneficiaries, may not sue drug manufacturers for selling drugs at prices higher than the discounted price required by Medicaid.

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving taxpayer standing under Article Three of the United States Constitution.

Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, is a 2011 United States Supreme Court case concerning evidentiary development in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Oral arguments in the case took place on November 9, 2010, and the Supreme Court issued its decision on April 4, 2011. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that only evidence originally presented before the state court in which the claim was originally adjudicated on the merits could be presented when raising a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and that evidence from a federal habeas court could not be presented in such proceedings. It also held that convicted murderer Scott Pinholster, the respondent in the case, was not entitled to the habeas relief he had been granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Virginia Office for Protection & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Ex parte Young allows a federal court to hear a lawsuit for prospective relief against state officials brought by another agency of the same state.

Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and sovereign immunity. The majority decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, held that the petitioner could not sue Texas state officials in their official capacity for damages under the RLUIPA, affirming a lower court ruling. The majority reasoned that the officials could not be sued under the RLUIPA because it was passed under the United States Congress’s Spending Power.

United States v. Tohono Oʼodham Nation, 563 U.S. 307 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a plaintiff cannot bring a suit in the Court of Federal Claims when they have another active suit based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of any difference in the requested relief.

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of Discover Bank v. Superior Court. As a result, businesses that include arbitration agreements with class action waivers can require consumers to bring claims only in individual arbitrations, rather than in court as part of a class action.

Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal agency's written response to a Freedom of Information Act request for records constitutes a "report" within the meaning of the False Claims Act's public disclosure bar.

CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal district court did not have authority under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to reform CIGNA's pension plan, but Section 502(a)(3) did give the court that authority.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

General Dynamics Corp. v. United States (consolidated with The Boeing Co. v. United States), 563 U.S. 478 (2011), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the State Secrets Privilege prevented the plaintiff from using the evidence it needed to protect itself from an expensive judgement.

Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a court-mandated population limit was necessary to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment constitutional rights. Justice Kennedy filed the majority opinion of the 5 to 4 decision, affirming a decision by a three judge panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Northern Districts of California which had ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years. Justice Scalia filed a dissent that was joined by Justice Thomas. A separate dissent was filed by Justice Alito that was joined by Chief Justice Roberts.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

United States v. Tinklenberg, 563 U.S. 647 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, the speedy trial clock stops whenever a pretrial motion is filed, regardless of whether the trial process is actually delayed by the motion or expected to be delayed.

Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when someone is charged of a killing under the federal witness-tampering statute, the state must prove a violation by showing there was a reasonable likelihood that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal officer.

Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the general case the Court may review a lower court's constitutional ruling at the behest of government officials who have won final judgment on qualified immunity grounds but could not for this case due to details specific to it.

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his involvement in the detention of a U.S. citizen in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case considered whether a party, in order to "actively [induce] infringement of a patent" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), must know that the induced act constitutes patent infringement, or whether deliberate indifference to the existence of a patent can be considered a form of actual knowledge.

Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that title in a patented invention vests first in the inventor, even if the inventor is a researcher at a federally funded lab subject to the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act. The judges affirmed the common understanding of U.S. constitutional law that inventors originally own inventions they make, and contractual obligations to assign those rights to third parties are secondary.

Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification." Their decision cleared the way for class action to proceed against Halliburton over its alleged misrepresentation of facts material to the value of its stock price.

McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that, regarding whether an offense under State law is a serious drug offense for purposes of federal sentencing, courts must consult the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense at the time of conviction.

Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that reasonable fees may be granted to the defendant in a suit that involves both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, but only for costs resulting from the frivolous claims.

Mayo Foundation v. United States, 562 U.S. 44 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Treasury Department regulation on the grounds that the courts should defer to government agencies in tax cases in absence of an unreasonable decision on the part of the agency.

Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A., 562 U.S. 61 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the means test in Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The means test had been adopted by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and Ransom is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court addressed provisions of that act.

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's standard for federal habeas relief applies even when a state court does not issue an opinion explaining the basis of its decision. The case also dealt with assistance of counsel issues under Strickland v. Washington.

Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim that a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.

NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that NASA's background checks of contract employees did not violate any constitutional privacy right.

Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, 562 U.S. 170 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects a worker from retaliation if that worker's fiancé files a workplace grievance.

Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a party may not appeal a denial of summary judgment after a district court has conducted a full trial on the merits.