United States Reports

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a Terry-stop patdown of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided that the police reasonably suspect that the passenger is armed and dangerous.

Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on management tasks such as their supervision or training of subordinates and their information-system organization. Particularly, the lead prosecutor in this case was immune from suit for improperly supervising the disclosures made by line prosecutors pursuant to Brady v. Maryland.

Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a state ban on political payroll deductions for contributions by public employees to their union's political action committee does not infringe the unions' First Amendment rights.

Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal government could not take land into trust that was acquired by the Narragansett Tribe in the late 20th century, as it was not federally recognized until 1983. While well documented in historic records and surviving as a community, the tribe was largely dispossessed of its lands while under guardianship by the state of Rhode Island before suing in the 20th century. The Court ruled that the phrase of tribes "now under Federal jurisdiction" in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 referred only to those tribes that were federally recognized when the act was passed.

United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting Section 921(a)(33)(A) of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1996. The Court held that a domestic relationship is not necessarily a defining element of the predicate offense to support a conviction for possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Pacific Bell d/b/a AT&T did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act when it charged other Internet providers a high fee to buy space on its phone lines to deliver an Internet connection. The court ruled that where there is no duty to deal at the wholesale level and no predatory pricing at the retail level, a firm is not required to price both of these services in a manner that preserves its rivals’ profit margins.

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled on the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on a government establishment of religion specifically with respect to monuments (e.g., statues) on public land.

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case decided 5–4 in which several environmental organizations, including Earth Island Institute, brought suit against the United States Forest Service (USFS) to enjoin that federal agency from implementing rules that would allow the salvage sale of timber from 238 acres of fire-damaged federally owned land without conducting the notice, comment, and appeal process of the Forest Service Decision-making and Appeals Reform Act. While the environmental organizations were litigating the injunction in the lower courts, the parties reached a settlement regarding the 238 acres in question and the district court accordingly dismissed.

Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving whether the bar to asylum in the United States for persecutors applies to asylum applicants who have been the target of credible threats of harm or torture in their home countries for refusing to participate further in persecution. The petitioner, Daniel Negusie, claimed he was forced to assist in the mistreatment of prisoners in Eritrea under threat of execution, and that because any assistance he rendered was provided under duress he should still be eligible for asylum. The Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals and United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred in their interpretation of the Court's holding in Fedorenko v.

Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2008 term, which began on October 6, 2008 and concluded October 4, 2009.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.

Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 554 of the United States Reports:

Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Bankruptcy Code's section authorizing an exemption from stamp taxes can only be used in relation to a Chapter 11 plan that has been confirmed.

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008), is a United States labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 19, 2008. The Court decided that an employer bears both the burden of production and burden of persuasion when defending a disparate impact claim using the "reasonable factors" defense under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a company that both administers and funds a benefit plan operates under a conflict of interest that must be considered when a court reviews its claim denials.

Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Kentucky's retirement system does not amount to age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act when granting pensions to disabled persons who had not yet reached the permitted retirement age of 55.

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the standard for competency to stand trial was not linked to the standard for competency to represent oneself.

Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a criminal defendant's initial appearance before a magistrate judge, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Attachment does not also require that a prosecutor (as distinct from a police officer) be aware of that initial proceeding or involved in its conduct.

Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal appeals court may not sua sponte increase a defendant's sentence unless the government first files a notice of appeal.

Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in federal court even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor.

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., Inc., 554 U.S. 316 (2008), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a tribal court had no jurisdiction to hear a case for discrimination against an Indian in the sale of non-Indian fee land located on a reservation.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.

Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for a crime in which the victim did not die and the victim's death was not intended.

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced from $2.5 billion to $500 million.

Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1, 554 U.S. 527 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Mobile–Sierra presumption that a negotiated rate is "just and reasonable" applies to all contract rates even if it was not actually reviewed for reasonableness, and the presumption applies regardless of whether the rate is considered too high or too low.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible.

Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that section 319 (popularly known as the "Millionaire's Amendment") of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (popularly known as the McCain-Feingold law) unconstitutionally infringed on candidates' rights as provided by First Amendment.

United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company, 553 U.S. 1 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns refunds for a tax that was levied and subsequently found to be unconstitutional. The Court held that a person claiming a refund for an unconstitutional tax must go through the normal administrative procedures for tax refunds before filing a lawsuit against the government.

MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent a state may tax companies that are not based in their state.

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection used for capital punishment.

Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the definition of "serious drug felony" for the purposes of sentencing an individual as having a prior drug conviction is taken from 21 U.S. Code § 802(44)[1] and not § 802(13). The former definition ties the meaning of "felony drug offense" to a drug offense punishable by more than a year in prison regardless of the jurisdiction, while the latter has a broader jurisdiction.

Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that felony driving while intoxicated is not a "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that addresses use of evidence obtained by police in a search incident to an arrest if that arrest is later found to be unlawful. The arrest was unlawful because it was not permitted by state law. However, the Supreme Court held that the arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.

Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the right to have a district judge preside over jury selection can be waived by counsel, allowing a magistrate judge to serve as a substitute.

United States v. Ressam, 553 U.S. 272 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an person who possessed explosives "during" the commission of another crime is eligible for a mandatory 10-year sentence on top of any other sentence even if the explosives were not related to the crime they committed.

United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child pornography with which to trade.

Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Kentucky law that provides a preferential tax break to Kentucky residents who invest in bonds issued by the state and its municipalities (municipal bonds). The Court held in a 7–2 vote that the State of Kentucky does not engage in unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce by exempting the interest on its bonds from residents' taxable income while taxing the interest earned on the bonds of other states. The case has national implications because thirty-six (36) states have tax schemes similar to the one at issue in Kentucky.

United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Armed Career Criminal Act. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 6–3 majority, ruled that although the elements of a crime may not be considered "serious," sentence enhancements related to a defendant's prior record will bear on how the determination is made.

Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a court's order resolving liability without addressing a plaintiff's requests for relief is not a final judgment. The facts of the case involved Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

CBOCS West, Inc., v. Hedrick G. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the petitioner, Hedrick Humphries, was unfairly retaliated against by CBOCS West Inc. for complaining to managers about the dismissal of another black employee for race reasons. The court found that CBOCS West Inc. had violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008), is a labor law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that federal employees can assert claims for retaliation resulting from filing an age discrimination complaint. The case continued the Court's long-standing position that cause for action following retaliation can be inferred in civil rights legislation, even though the law does not explicitly provide protection against victimization.

United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the rule of lenity requires that the federal money-laundering statute's use of the inherently-ambiguous term "proceeds" be read in the light favorable to the accused. Here, that means it includes criminal "profit" and not criminal "receipts."

Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal money-laundering statute contains no "legitimate wealth" requirement, and mere proof that the defendant was attempting to conceal the money is not enough to uphold a conviction.

Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States evaluated standards for awarding attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. After it prevailed in a lawsuit for back wages, Richlin filed an application for reimbursement of fees and expenses from the lawsuit, including 523.8 hours of paralegal work. Richlin requested the paralegal fees at the market rate for the services, rather than at the cost to the law firm that represented Richlin. The Department of Transportation's Board of Contract Appeals ruled that recovery of fees should be limited to the cost to the attorneys, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's determination.

Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the class-of-one theory of equal protection does not apply in the public employment context.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The decision made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes.