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.
- Foster v. Chatman (2016)578 U.S. 488
Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. 488 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.
- Wittman v. Personhuballah (2016)578 U.S. 539
Wittman v. Personhuballah, 578 U.S. 539 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the appellants lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to pursue their appeal. The case dealt with redistricting by the Virginia Legislature of Virginia's 3rd congressional district and allegations of gerrymandering based upon race. The appeal was brought by Congressmen David Brat, Randy Forbes, and Rob Wittman.
- Green v. Brennan (2016)578 U.S. 547
Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when filing a workplace discrimination complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the filing period begins only after an employee resigns. The filing period begins at the time that the employee gives notice of resignation, not the effective date of resignation.
- U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. (2016)578 U.S. 590
Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. 590 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because jurisdictional determinations constitute "final agency action". For a federal agency decision or action to be reviewable in court under the Administrative Procedures Act, it must be a “final” agency action, meaning that there are no further steps that can be taken before it has an impact on the legal rights or obligations of any affected parties.
- Simmons v. Himmelreich (2016)578 U.S. 621
Simmons v. Himmelreich, 578 U.S. 621 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state officials may still be liable for conduct that the state is immune to under exceptions within the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- Ross v. Blake (2016)578 U.S. 632
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "special circumstances" cannot excuse an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, but clarified that inmates are required to exhaust only administrative remedies that are genuinely available. In so doing, it vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- Hurst v. Florida (2016)577 U.S. 92
Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.
- Kansas v. Kansas (2016)577 U.S. 108
Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016)577 U.S. 153
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified whether a case becomes moot when a party provides a settlement offer that satisfies a named plaintiff's claims in a class action suit and whether a government contractor is entitled to "derivative sovereign immunity".
- Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016)577 U.S. 190
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in Miller v. Alabama (2012), that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively. This decision potentially affects up to 2,300 cases nationwide.
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States (2016)577 U.S. 250
Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when litigants are entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the plaintiff in this case was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because they did not demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" prevented the timely filing of the lawsuit.
- FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn. (2016)577 U.S. 260
FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n, 577 U.S. 260 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had the authority to regulate demand response transactions. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in this case was the last opinion he wrote before his death in February 2016.
- Lockhart v. United States (2016)577 U.S. 347
Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347 (2016), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the interpretation of a federal statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2) states that a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is subject to a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence if they have "a prior conviction...under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." Avondale Lockhart, convicted of possession of child pornography, had a prior conviction for sexual abuse of his 53-year-old girlfriend under New York State law. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison under § 2252(b)(2).
- V.L. v. E.L. (2016)577 U.S. 404
V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404 (2016), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. V.L.
- Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)577 U.S. 411
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously vacated a Massachusetts conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (2016)577 U.S. 442
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which held that representative evidence could be used to support the claims of the class. The case arose as a class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods. The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit's judgment that the class satisfied the predominance requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's Rule 23 and that the use of representative evidence was allowable in this case. It has been cited by lower courts and has spawned significant academic discussion.
- Nebraska v. Parker (2016)577 U.S. 481
Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U.S. 481 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress's 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation. The disputed land is within the reservation's boundaries.
- Maryland v. Kulbicki (2015)577 U.S. 1
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.
- Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)Held federal statute unconstitutional576 U.S. 1
Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the president, as head of the executive branch, has exclusive power to recognize formally a foreign sovereign and its territorial boundaries; as such, Congress may not require the State Department to indicate in passports that Jerusalem is part of Israel.
- Kerry v. Din (2015)576 U.S. 86
Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.
- Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC (2015)576 U.S. 121
Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. 121 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Section 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit bankruptcy courts to award attorney's fees for work performed while defending fee applications.
- Reyes Mata v. Lynch (2015)576 U.S. 143
Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)576 U.S. 155
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages.
- McFadden v. United States (2015)576 U.S. 186
McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that section 841 of the Controlled Substances Act requires the government to prove that to be in criminal violation, a defendant must be aware that an analogue defined by the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act with which he was dealing was a controlled substance.
- Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (2015)576 U.S. 200
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.
- Ohio v. Clark (2015)576 U.S. 237
Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015), is United States Supreme Court case opinion that narrowed the standard set in Crawford v. Washington for determining whether hearsay statements in criminal cases are permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio on June 18, 2015. The Court held that the out-of-court statements were admissible because the primary purpose was not to create evidence. Citing a prior related case, Michigan v. Bryant, the Court formulated this test as one asking "whether a statement was given with the 'primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.'"
- Davis v. Ayala (2015)576 U.S. 257
Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial.
- Brumfield v. Cain (2015)576 U.S. 305
Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that because Brumfield satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)’s requirements, he was entitled to have his Atkins v. Virginia claim considered on the merits in federal court.
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015)576 U.S. 389
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that a pretrial detainee must prove only that force used by police is excessive according to an objective standard, not that a police officer was subjectively aware that the force used was unreasonable.
- Los Angeles v. Patel (2015)576 U.S. 409
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a 90-day period, is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.
- King v. Burwell (2015)576 U.S. 473
King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.
- Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015)576 U.S. 519
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, the Court held that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but that such claims require a plaintiff to prove it is the defendant's policies that cause a disparity.
- Johnson v. United States (2015)Held federal statute unconstitutional576 U.S. 591
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled the Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and in violation of due process.
- Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)Altered precedent576 U.S. 644
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ( OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas under U.S. sovereignty to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.
Overruled Baker v. Nelson (1972) - Michigan v. EPA (2015)576 U.S. 743
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.
- Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n (2015)576 U.S. 787
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission. In doing so, the Court expressly rejected a nascent version of the independent state legislature theory.
- Glossip v. Gross (2015)576 U.S. 863
Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.
- Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl (2015)575 U.S. 1
Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a lawsuit by the Direct Marketing Association trade group about a Colorado law regarding reporting the state's tax requirements to customers and to the Colorado Department of Revenue is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act. While the case was reheard and found in favor of Colorado, the concurrence of Justice Anthony Kennedy provided a means for states to bring a challenge the ruling of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which has prevented states from collecting taxes from out-of-state vendors.
- Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc. (2015)575 U.S. 21
Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 575 U.S. 21 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that railroads like CSX can compare their tax treatment to competing transportation companies under federal law. The Court sent the case back to a lower court to determine whether Alabama’s tax differences were justified.
- Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads (2015)575 U.S. 43
Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, 575 U.S. 43 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held "for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity."
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn. (2015)575 U.S. 92
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the D.C. Circuit's Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to a clear reading of the Administrative Procedure Act and "improperly imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the Act's maximum procedural requirements."
- B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. (2015)575 U.S. 138
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) adjudications of trademark infringement can preclude issues for district courts.
- Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund (2015)575 U.S. 175
Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under the Securities Act of 1933, the issuer of a security is not liable for a statement of opinion simply because the stated opinion ultimately proves incorrect. On the other hand, the issuer is liable for the omissions of material facts from a stated opinion where those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement.
- Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2015)575 U.S. 206
Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. 206 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.
- Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2015)575 U.S. 254
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254 (2015), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a previous decision by a federal district court upholding Alabama's 2012 redrawing of its electoral districts.
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. (2015)575 U.S. 320
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Supremacy Clause does not confer a private right of action.
- Rodriguez v. United States (2015)575 U.S. 348
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case which analyzed whether police officers may extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a search with a trained detection dog. In a 6–3 opinion, the Court held that officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop. However, the Court remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to determine whether the officer's extension of the traffic stop was independently justified by reasonable suspicion. Some analysts have suggested that the Court's decision to limit police authority was influenced by ongoing protests in Ferguson, Missouri.
- Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc. (2015)575 U.S. 373
Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Natural Gas Act does not preempt state-law antitrust claims against entities controlling natural-gas pipelines because the act does not occupy the field of controlling retail prices and curbing other unfair business practices.
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong (2015)575 U.S. 402
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the statutes of limitations within the Federal Tort Claims Act are subject to equitable tolling because they have not been expressly tagged by Congress as jurisdictional.
- Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)575 U.S. 433
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the First Amendment did not prohibit states from barring judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their election campaigns since that specific restriction on candidate's speech was deemed to be narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of keeping the judiciary impartial. It is a rare instance of a government regulation passing strict scrutiny. At issue in the case was a Florida law which barred judges from personally soliciting campaign funds. However, judges could still set up a committee in order to raise campaign funds.