Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving libel.
Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284 (1976), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court.
Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952), was a case that came before the United States Supreme Court in 1952. It upheld an Illinois law making it illegal to publish or exhibit any writing or picture portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion". It is most known for giving a legal basis to some degree that forms of hate speech which may be deemed to breach U.S. libel law are not protected by the First Amendment.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
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. In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that parties are entitled to remibursement for services at prevailing market rates.
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. ___ (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated the First Amendment.
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ___ (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.
Sturgeon v. Frost refers to two cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, both dealing with what regulations the National Park Service has over lands in Alaska under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Court in the first case, Sturgeon v. Frost I, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), ruled that the Park Service may only regulate "non-public" lands, remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court. In Sturgeon v. Frost II, Docket 17-949 the Court unanimously that the Alaska conserviation act delegates waters of Alaska as non-public lands, stripping the National Park Service's authority over them.
Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.
Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of the defendant Duane Buck after the defendant's attorney introduced evidence that suggested the defendant would be more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he was black.
Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a racial bias exception to the no-impeachment rule. According to two jurors, a third juror made a number of biased statements about the defendant's Mexican ethnicity, stating, "I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want." In a 5–3 vote, the Court held that, notwithstanding a state evidentiary rule, the trial court must be permitted to consider the two jurors' testimony.
Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may bring a claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to challenge pretrial confinement. In a 6-2 majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court stated that "the Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process". This decision reversed and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas also joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.
Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court evaluated whether Virginia's legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by considering racial demographics when drawing the boundaries of twelve of the state's legislative districts.
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion.
National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case. At issue is which court will hear cases that define the term Waters of the United States for the purpose of rule making, to the exclusion of the states. The case is the successor to North Dakota v United States EPA, among others.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark US labor law United States Supreme Court case concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that detained immigrants do not have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings.
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the nation of Iran by the families of American victims of the Ben Yehuda Street bombings which occurred in September 1997. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, nations cannot typically be sued unless the state can be proved to have provided support for terrorists or acts of terrorism. After a district judge ruled Iran owed $71.5 million to the families of the victims, the families brought several cases to court in an attempt to attach and execute on assets owned by the state of Iran located in the United States.
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "whistleblower" status and associated protections as defined by Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank only apply in cases where the whistleblower has reported malfeasance directly to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police officers had probable cause to arrest those attending a party in Washington, D.C.
