United States Reports

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that Article III required standing for each stage of litigation, rather than just when a complaint is filed.

Adams v. Robertson, 520 U.S. 83 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court, in a per curiam opinion, "dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted."

Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that people who have been released from incarceration in programs that are equivalent to parole have the same rights as people on parole; they are entitled to a hearing before the government can return them to incarceration.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC is the general title of two rulings of the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of must-carry regulations enforced by the Federal Communications Commission on cable television operators. In the first ruling, known colloquially as Turner I, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Supreme Court held that cable television companies were First Amendment speakers who enjoyed free speech rights when determining what channels and content to carry on their networks, but demurred on whether the must-carry rules at issue were restrictions of those rights. After a remand to a lower court for fact-finding on the economic effects of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the dispute returned to the Supreme Court.

Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the Constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of a state statute requiring drug tests of all candidates for certain state offices. The case is notable as being the only one in recent years where the Supreme Court has upheld a challenge to a ballot access restriction from members of a third party, in this case the Libertarian Party of Georgia.

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that state governments may prohibit candidates from being listed on the ballot for more than one party. In deciding that candidates do not have a First Amendment freedom of association to represent multiple parties, this case limited the spread of electoral fusion in the United States.

Richards v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 385 (1997), was a case before the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not allow a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule for investigations of drug-related felonies.

Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing tribal courts' adjudicatory authority over civil matters between nonmembers of the tribe that take place on public highways in Indian Country. Applying Montana v. United States, the court held that, absent Congressional authorization, tribal courts cannot adjudicate civil matters between nonmembers that occur on state-maintained public highways passing over reservation land. Justice Ginsburg delivered the unanimous decision of the court.

Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which it held that members of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals were "inferior officers" under the Appointments Clause. The court also sought out to define "inferior officers", and generally held that inferior officers were those whose decisions could be reviewed by, and could be removed without cause by, a principal officer who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. In particular, there is no temporary immunity and thus no delay of federal cases until the President leaves office.

Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a spouse that is not a participant in an ERISA account cannot will part or all of it before distribution of the pension plan.

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Montana law permitting only licensed physicians to perform abortions. The Court summarily reversed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had held that the law was likely intended to inhibit abortion access. In a per curiam opinion, a majority of the Court found that there was no evidence that the Montana legislature acted with an invalid intent. The Court also reiterated its earlier holding in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that the states have broad flexibility to regulate abortion so long as their regulations do not create an undue burden on a woman's right to choose.

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay, wasting time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In this case, Old Chief offered to stipulate to the fact of a prior conviction, which was an element of the crime with which he was charged. The prosecution resisted this stipulation, arguing that it had the right to present its case in any manner it chose.

Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a provision which escheats property to tribe upon owner's death any fractional interest in allotment which constitutes less than two percent of the allotment and has not produced $100 in income over the past five years, unless it is devised or descends to owner of another fractional interest in the allotment, works an unconstitutional taking.

Robinson v. Shell Oil Company, 519 U.S. 337 (1997), is US labor law case in the United States Supreme Court in which the Court unanimously held that under federal law, U.S. employers must not engage in workplace discrimination such as writing bad job references, or otherwise retaliating against former employees as a punishment for filing job discrimination complaints.

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court related to legal protection of access to abortion. The question before the court was whether the First Amendment was violated by placing an injunction on protesters outside abortion clinics. The court ruled in a 6–3 decision that "floating buffer zones" preventing protesters approaching people entering or leaving the clinics were unconstitutional, though "fixed buffer zones" around the clinics themselves remained constitutional. The Court's upholding the fixed buffer was the most important aspect of the ruling, because it was a common feature of injunctions nationwide.

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that officers could order passengers out a car during a traffic stop, extending Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns the standard that the Court should apply when it reviews an executive department's interpretation of regulations established under federal legislation. The specific issue was whether sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department should be paid for working overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the overtime pay requirement, and the US Department of Labor issued regulations to determine if an employee was covered by the overtime requirement. The Court held that it should defer to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the regulations.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 519 of the United States Reports:

Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996), was a Supreme Court of the United States case regarding a controversy over the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner, M.L.B., argued that the Mississippi Chancery Courts could not terminate her parental rights on the basis that she was unable to pay the court fees. M.L.B. had been sued by S.L.J. to terminate M.L.B.'s parental rights and gain the ability to adopt the children. The judge declared in favor of S.L.J. under the premise that the decree was fair, as it was based on the fulfilling of the burden of proof by the father and his second wife with "clear and convincing evidence." Despite the statement, the Chancery Court never elaborated on the evidence or clearly explained why M.L.B.'s parental rights had been dismissed. When M.L.B.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 518 of the United States Reports:

United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that in rem civil forfeitures are not "punishment" for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Bounds v. Smith did not create an abstract, freestanding right for incarcerated people to access a law library or legal assistance.

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (1996), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and how federal courts are to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. The Court held that the New York state rule applied.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the scope of federal preemption.

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the long-standing male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in a 7–1 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas, whose son was enrolled at the university at the time, recused himself.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party.

Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v. Federal Communications Commission, 518 U.S. 727 (1996), was a 1996 United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The Court held that provisions 10(b) and 10(c) of this Act violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Provision 10(b) required operators of leased access television stations to segregate "patently offensive" programming on a separate channel, to block access to that channel from viewers, and to unblock it in response to a viewer's written request.

United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Government had breached its contractual obligations. The court in Winstar rejected the Government's "unmistakability defense"—that surrenders of sovereign authority, such as the promise to refrain from regulatory changes, must appear in unmistakable terms in a contract in order to be enforceable.

Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that under the Constitution's Census Clause, Congress is granted with the authority to conduct an "actual enumeration" of the American society, chiefly for the purpose of allocating congressional representation among the states.

Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996), is a Supreme court case that ruled that states could moderate national banks if doing so does not prevent or largely interfere with the national bank's ability to exercise its powers. Later, in 2004, the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) authorized its preemption rule which declared that a national bank's ability to exert its incidental powers which include lending and deposit taking inhibited state laws that obstruct, impair or condition” the business of banking."

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment. Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer. The case also held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided.

Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed an Oklahoma court decision holding that a defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial unless he proves otherwise by the second highest legal standard of proof, that of clear and convincing evidence, ruling that to be unconstitutional. The court said the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated.

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact. An issue designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge, and an issue construed as a question of fact is determined by the jury.

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that the burden of proof for selective prosecution rests with the defendant, who must show the government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races.

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a complete ban on the advertising of alcohol prices was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and that the Twenty-first Amendment, empowering the states to regulate alcohol, did not lessen other constitutional restraints of state power.

BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States case which held that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality violated the Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked "a rational relationship to legitimate state interests", and the dissent stated that the majority "evidently agrees that 'rational basis'—the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause—is the governing standard". The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review. Romer was the first Supreme Court decision to address gay rights since Bowers v.

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that appellate courts should review probable cause determinations for warrantless searches de novo.

Smiley v. Citibank, 517 U.S. 735 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court decision upholding a regulation of the Comptroller of Currency which included credit card late fees and other penalties within the definition of interest and thus prevented individual states from limiting them when charged by nationally-chartered banks. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a unanimous court that the regulation was reasonable enough under the Court's own Chevron standard for the justices to defer to the Comptroller. The decision, which had begun as a class action in California, was seen as a victory for banks and credit-card issuers, who could mostly charge late fees as they pleased. For that same reason consumer advocates were displeased, warning that late fees could rise to previously unseen levels.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision that "declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop."

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions.

Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning redistricting and racial gerrymandering. This case and its predecessor, Shaw v. Reno, concerned North Carolina's congressional redistricting plans. The Court ruled in Shaw v. Hunt that the redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning racial gerrymandering, where racial minority majority-electoral districts were created during Texas' 1990 redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation. The Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, held that race was the predominant factor in the creation of the districts and that under a strict scrutiny standard the three districts were not narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.

Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case that tested the extent of software copyright. The lower court had held that copyright does not extend to the user interface of a computer program, such as the text and layout of menus. Due to the recusal of one justice, the Supreme Court decided the case with an eight-member bench split evenly, leaving the lower court's decision affirmed but setting no national precedent.

Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a defendant's immediate appeal of an unfavorable qualified immunity ruling on a motion to dismiss does not deprive the court of appeals of jurisdiction over a second appeal, also based on qualified immunity, immediately following denial of summary judgment.

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 516 of the United States Reports: