United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Though the court recognized that O'Brien's conduct was expressive as a protest against the Vietnam War, it considered the law justified by a significant government interest unrelated to the suppression of speech and was tailored towards that end.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 9–0, that the sniff of one's personal property in a public place by a specially trained police dog was not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In the case, suspected drug trafficker Raymond Place had his luggage seized at LaGuardia Airport by agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration, which they exposed to a drug-sniffing dog and held onto for several days without a search warrant. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the unanimous Court that the sniff of a dog is sui generis, or "uniquely pervasive", and thus police do not need probable cause for their dogs to sniff a person's belongings in a public place. The Court did rule, however, that detaining a person's belongings while waiting for a police dog to arrive did constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment.
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure that would eventually become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the later case of District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462. The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions.
The United States Reports are the official record of the Supreme Court of the United States. They include rulings, orders, case tables, in alphabetical order both by the name of the petitioner and by the name of the respondent, and other proceedings. United States Reports, once printed and bound, are the final version of court opinions and cannot be changed. Opinions of the court in each case are prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are published sequentially. The Court's Publication Office oversees the binding and publication of the volumes of United States Reports, although the actual printing, binding, and publication are performed by private firms under contract with the United States Government Publishing Office.
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence. In an opinion by Justice Powell, the Court struck down several provisions of an Ohio abortion law, including portions found to be unconstitutionally vague.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), is a Fourth Amendment case. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States, thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.
Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), is a notable case in United States civil procedure that came before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing personal jurisdiction.
The following is a complete list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court organized by volume of the United States Reports in which they appear. This is a list of volumes of U.S. Reports, and the links point to the contents of each individual volume. Each volume was edited by one of the Reporters of Decisions of the Supreme Court. As of the beginning of the October 2019 Term, there were 574 bound volumes of the U.S. Reports. There were another 14 volumes worth of opinions available as "slip opinions", which are preliminary versions of the opinion published on the Supreme Court's website.
Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an Executive Order to shut down the Philadelphia Naval Base was not subject to judicial review. In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that the decision to close the base was not subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act because the decision to close the base did not constitute the final action of an agency. Additionally, the Court held that the decision to close the base, which was made pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, was not subject to judicial review because the 1990 Act "commits decisionmaking to the discretion of the President".
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held valid a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that during the licensing of nuclear power plants, the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact.
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when arbitration provisions in contracts are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. In a 6–3 opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court reversed a decision by the California Court of Appeal that refused to enforce an arbitration agreement between DIRECTV and its customers. The California Court had ruled that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because, under applicable California law, a class action arbitration waiver between DIRECTV and its customers was unenforceable. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the California Court of Appeal's interpretation was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, and the California Court of Appeal was therefore required to enforce the arbitration agreement.