This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 561 of the United States Reports :
| Case name | Citation | Date decided |
|---|---|---|
| Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project | 561 U.S. 1 | June 21,2010 |
| The federal government may prohibit providing non-violent material support for terrorist organizations, including legal services and advice, without violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. | ||
| Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson | 561 U.S. 63 | June 21,2010 |
| Under the Federal Arbitration Act, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine whether the agreement is enforceable, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge. However, if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator. | ||
| Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp. | 561 U.S. 89 | June 21,2010 |
| When a cargo shipment begins overseas, portions of the trip when the goods are traveling over land by train are governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, not the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. | ||
| Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms | 561 U.S. 139 | June 21,2010 |
| The plaintiffs in this case had standing, and the district court abused its discretion by entering a nationwide injunction. | ||
| Doe v. Reed | 561 U.S. 186 | June 24,2010 |
| Disclosure of referendum petitions does not as a general matter violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. | ||
| Morrison v. National Australia Bank | 561 U.S. 247 | June 24,2010 |
| Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 does not provide a cause of action to foreign plaintiffs suing foreign and American defendants for misconduct in connection with securities traded on foreign exchanges. | ||
| Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters | 561 U.S. 287 | June 24,2010 |
| Courts, not arbitrators, determine whether and when arbitration contracts are formed when the decision affects whether parties intended to submit an issue to arbitration. | ||
| Magwood v. Patterson | 561 U.S. 320 | June 24,2010 |
| When a state prisoner obtains federal habeas corpus relief and is re-sentenced, a habeas application challenging the new judgment is not a "second or successive" challenge even if the prisoner could have challenged the original sentence on the same ground. | ||
| Skilling v. United States | 561 U.S. 358 | June 24,2010 |
| Pretrial publicity and community prejudice did not prevent Skilling from obtaining a fair trial. However, the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346, is properly confined to cover only bribery and kickback schemes, which do not include Skilling's alleged misconduct. So construed, §1346 is not unconstitutionally vague. | ||
| Black v. United States | 561 U.S. 465 | June 24,2010 |
| Remanded for reconsideration in light of Skilling v. United States . By properly objecting to the honest-services jury instructions at trial, the defendants secured their right to challenge those instructions on appeal. | ||
| Weyhrauch v. United States | 561 U.S. 476 | June 24,2010 |
| Judgment vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Skilling v. United States . | ||
| Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board | 561 U.S. 477 | June 28,2010 |
| The dual for-cause limitations on the removal of members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board contravene the Constitution's separation of powers, but the unconstitutional limitations are severable from the remainder of the statute. The Board's appointment is consistent with the Appointments clause. | ||
| Bilski v. Kappos | 561 U.S. 593 | June 28,2010 |
| The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather a useful tool. Bilski's application, seeking a patent on a method for hedging risk in the commodities market, did not draw to patent eligible subject matter. | ||
| Christian Legal Society v. Martinez | 561 U.S. 661 | June 28,2010 |
| The policy of Hastings, which requires student groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain official recognition, is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the forum; it therefore does not transgress First Amendment limitations. | ||
| McDonald v. City of Chicago | 561 U.S. 742 | June 28,2010 |
| The right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is protected under the Second Amendment, and is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | ||
| Sears v. Upton | 561 U.S. 945 | June 29,2010 |
| Proper application of the prejudice test of Strickland v. Washington "requires precisely the type of probing and fact-specific analysis that the state trial court failed to undertake." Courts must undertake a point-by-point investigation of the deficiencies in the defense and reweigh the likely outcome. Courts may not perform a cursory analysis and claim that there is no way to know how the inadequate defense might have affected the outcome of the trial. | ||