United States Reports
606 volumes · 104,521 opinions
4,420 opinions in United States Reports with a Wikipedia-sourced synopsis — the cases notable enough that someone wrote an encyclopedia article about them.
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez (2005)546 U.S. 21
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), is a US labor law case of the a United States Supreme Court, interpreting the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.
- United States v. Olson (2005)546 U.S. 43
United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States waives sovereign immunity only where local law would make a "private person" liable in tort, not where local law would make "a state or municipal entity" liable.
- Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast (2005)546 U.S. 49
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), is a Supreme Court case that determined that the burden of proof belonged to whoever challenged an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Schaffer v. Weast revised the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which had introduced IEPs as a method of ensuring an individual and effective education for disabled students. Prior to Schaffer v. Weast, when any party challenged an IEP, the burden of proof was almost always placed on the respective school system.
- Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (2005)546 U.S. 95
Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Indians, 546 U.S. 95 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state's non-discriminatory fuel tax imposed on off-reservation distributors does not pose an affront to a tribe's sovereignty.
- Lockhart v. United States (2005)546 U.S. 142
Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning whether the United States government can offset Social Security benefits to collect on student loan debt over 10 years old. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision that allowed the offset by the government.
- Gonzalez v Raich (2005)545 U.S. 1
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.
- Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (2005)545 U.S. 119
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined (in a 6–3 decision) that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to foreign cruise ships in American waters.
- Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)545 U.S. 193
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case with ramifications for patent law. The dispute dates to approximately 1996 and centers on a federal law known as the "FDA safe harbor" (§ 271(e)(1)).
- Wilkinson v. Austin (2005)545 U.S. 209
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives rise to a liberty interest in not being placed in a Supermax prison, Ohio's procedures for determining which prisoners should be placed there satisfied the requirements of due process.
- Miller-El v. Dretke (2005)545 U.S. 231
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case that clarified the constitutional limitations on the use by prosecutors of peremptory challenges and of the Texas procedure termed the "jury shuffle."
- Grable & Sons Metal Products Inc. Darue Engineering & Mfg. (2005)545 U.S. 308
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).
- Rompilla v. Beard (2005)545 U.S. 374
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 20, 2005. In a majority opinion authored by Justice David Souter, the Court held 5–4 that the petitioner, convicted murderer Ronald Rompilla, had received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer's failure to adequately investigate and obtain evidence that the lawyer knew the prosecution would likely use against the defendant. It therefore reversed the prior ruling to the contrary by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and overturned Rompilla's death sentence as a result.
- Kelo v. City of New London (2005)545 U.S. 469
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan".
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. (2005)545 U.S. 546
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of § 1332, provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.
- Halbert v. Michigan (2005)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional545 U.S. 605
Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Michigan law (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 770.3a (West 2000)), which denied public counsel for defendants appealing a conviction on a plea, violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court affirmed that "a State is required to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant's first-tier appeal as of right."
- Van Orden v. Perry (2005)545 U.S. 677
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)545 U.S. 748
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. This decision affirmed the controversial principle that state and local government officials have no affirmative duty to protect the public from harm it did not create; a similar ruling was made in DeShaney v. Winnebago County which involves Child Protective Services (called the Department of Social Services in the case) failing to protect a child from a violent parent.
- McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. (2005)Held municipal or local ordinance unconstitutional545 U.S. 844
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis.
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)545 U.S. 913
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast (maker of Morpheus), could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.
- National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services (2005)545 U.S. 967
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes.
- Tenet et al. v. Doe et Ux (2005)544 U.S. 1
Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously that spies (those recruited for espionage by the Central Intelligence Agency) cannot sue the CIA or the United States government to enforce an espionage contract. The court ruled that allowing such suits jeopardize the protection of state secrets.
- Muehler v. Mena (2005)544 U.S. 93
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows detention of an occupant in handcuffs while a search is being conducted, and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)544 U.S. 113
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Telecommunications Act (TCA) precluded damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it provided a comprehensive remedial scheme. Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams is a part of the Sea Clammers Doctrine line of cases.
- Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005)544 U.S. 167
Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is a form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX.
- City of Sherrill New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York et al. (2005)544 U.S. 197
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that repurchase of traditional tribal lands did not restore tribal sovereignty to that land.
- Smith v. City of Jackson (2005)544 U.S. 228
Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 30, 2005. It concerned the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the disparate impact theory.
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005)544 U.S. 280
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and its relation to preclusion and concurrent jurisdiction.
- Rousey v. Jacoway (2005)544 U.S. 320
Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320 (2005), was a bankruptcy case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) qualify for certain exemptions under Title 11 of the United States Code.
- Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo (2005)544 U.S. 336
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), is a securities fraud decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that an inflated purchase price will not by itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss needed to allege and prove "loss causation."
- Pasquantino v. United States (2005)544 U.S. 349
Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute.
- Small v. United States (2005)544 U.S. 385
Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it illegal to possess a firearm for individuals previously "convicted in any court" of crimes for which they could have been sentenced to more than one year in prison. The Court ruled, in a five to three decision, that "any court" does not include those in foreign countries. This decision resolved a circuit split on the issue, and reversed the lower ruling of the Third Circuit that the law did apply to foreign convictions.
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005)544 U.S. 431
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not preempt state law claims, brought by a group of Texas farmers, alleging that one of Dow's pesticides damaged their peanut crop.
- Granholm Governor of Michigan et al. v. Heald et al. (2005)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional544 U.S. 460
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), along with its companion case, Swedenburg v. Kelly, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that laws in New York and Michigan permitting in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same were unconstitutional. The case was notable because the arguments centered on the rarely-invoked Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1933, which ended Prohibition.
- Lingle Governor of Hawaii et al. v. Chevron Usa Inc (2005)Altered precedent544 U.S. 528
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005), was a landmark case in United States regulatory takings law whereby the Court expressly overruled precedent created in Agins v. City of Tiburon. Agins held that a government regulation of private property effects a taking if such regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. Writing for the Court, Justice O’Connor found the test untenable for a number of reasons, but declined to grant Chevron relief because Chevron’s motion before the court (for grant of summary judgment) was limited to a discussion of the “substantially advances” theory which had just been struck down. The Court remanded to the Ninth Circuit for a determination of whether the statute exacted a taking according to the formula of Penn Central.
Overruled Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) - Johanns Secretary of Agriculture et al. v. Livestock Marketing Association et al. (2005)544 U.S. 550
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005), is a First Amendment case of the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue was whether a beef producer could be compelled to contribute to beef industry advertising.
- Deck v. Missouri (2005)544 U.S. 622
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial. In a 7–2 opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the court held that it is against due process, a right prescribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States (2005)544 U.S. 696
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen's conviction of obstruction of justice in the fraudulent activities and subsequent collapse of Enron. The Court found that the jury instructions did not properly portray the law Arthur Andersen was charged with breaking. Even after the conviction was overturned, the damage to Arthur Andersen's reputation was such that it did not return as a viable business.
- Cutter et al. v. Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2005)544 U.S. 709
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), facilities that accept federal funds cannot deny prisoners accommodations that are necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs.
- Tory v. Cochran (2005)544 U.S. 734
Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving libel.
- Gould v. United States District Court (2005)544 U.S. 1010
Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004), was a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. U.S. military personnel who had been tortured by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War sued for damages, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) made state sponsors of terror liable. Iraq never contested the lawsuit, but the U.S. federal government intervened. The Court of Appeals ultimately decided against the plaintiffs, saying that the FSIA did not create new causes of action against foreign states. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs' appeal.
- Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (2005)543 U.S. 335
Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(2)(E)(iv) permits a non-citizen to be deported to a country without the advance consent of that country's government.
- Clark Field Office Director Seattle Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al. v. Martinez (2005)543 U.S. 371
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case ending the detention of people who had been denied refugee status. They were kept in prison awaiting deportation even though they could not in fact be deported due to a political stalemate with Cuba. An alien can be found inadmissible on the grounds of poor health, criminal history, substance trafficking, prostitution/human trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activity, etc. The deportation process requires a ruling from an immigration judge for violating immigration laws. The case resolved conflicting rulings made by the 9th and 11th circuits on whether Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) was applicable to inadmissible immigrants, Sergio Martinez and Daniel Benitez.
- Illinois v. Caballes (2005)543 U.S. 405
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses.
- Commissioner v. Banks (2005)543 U.S. 426
Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with Commissioner v. Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The Supreme Court held when a taxpayer's recovery constitutes income, the taxpayer's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the Civil Rights Tax Relief in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
- Smith v. Massachusetts (2005)543 U.S. 462
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that submitting a count to the jury after the judge has granted a mid-trial acquittal subjects a defendant to further factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co. (2005)543 U.S. 481
Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a dredge is a "vessel" under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
- Johnson v. California (2005)543 U.S. 499
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a prison system's policy of segregating new residents by race for the purpose of inhibiting gang violence is subject to strict scrutiny analysis.
- Roper Superintendent Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons (2005)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional543 U.S. 551
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5–4 decision overruled Stanford v. Kentucky, in which the court had upheld execution of offenders at or above age 16. Roper overturned statutes in 19 states.
Overruled Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) - Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt (2005)543 U.S. 631
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a contract with the Federal Government to reimburse the tribe for health care costs was binding, despite the failure of Congress to appropriate funds for those costs.
- Leocal v. Ashcroft (2004)543 U.S. 1
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 543 of the United States Reports: