Griswold v Conneticut (1965) - 7-2 ruled unconstitutional a state law banning all use of contraceptives.

Roe v Wade (1973) - 7-2 ruling that abortion was constitutional and legal. Many different opinions written by the  justices. A crucial and controversial decision. The litmus test for conservative politicians and future justices.

Harris v Macrae (1973) -- 5-4 ruling that a law preventing the use of Medicaid funding for abortions was constitutional.

Akron v Akron Center of Reproductive Health (1983) - 6-3 ruling against anti-abortion laws. Upheld Roe v Wade right of access to an abortion. O’C, WHR, BW dissenting.

Thornberg v Gingles (1986) - 5-4 ruling reaffirming the Roe right to an abortion.

Hartigan v Zbarez (1987) - 4-4 deadlock ruling during period when the Bork appointment failure saw a vacancy on the Court. The lower court ruling stood as a result.

Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989) - 5-4 ruling that a state legislature could adopt laws restricting access to abortions. NB. Congress passed a bill to overturn the ban but it was vetoed by President Bush.

Rust v Sullivan (1991) - 5-4 ruling that upheld as constitutional the 1988 Presidential Executive Order that banned abortion counselling in clinics that received federal funding.

Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) - 5-4 ruling that upheld a moderately restrictive abortion law in Pennsylvania, but overturned a more restrictive one. This followed Webster, and Roe was not overturned. A stare decisis position regarding Roe

National Organisation of Women v Scheidler (1994) - ruled that the blockading of abortion clinics by protest groups could be prevented by existing anti-racketeering laws.

Schenck v Pro Choice Network of Western New York (1997) - 9-0 ruling that a wide ban on protests outside abortion clinics was unconstitutional, but ruled as constitutional a ban on protests in close proximity to the clinics. Freedom of expression was the principle at stake.

Sternberg, Att. Gen. of Nebraska v Carhart (2000) - 5-4 (SB, JPS, SDO, RBG, DS / WHR, AS, RK, CT) ruling that Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban was unconstitutional because it took no account of the woman's health and it imposed an undue burden on the right to choose abortion. Roe was upheld in this latest test.

Hill et al v Colorado (2000) - 6-3 ruling that a Colorado law preventing any person within 100ft of a health facility to engage in oral protest, education or counselling is constitutional weigning the interests of the health and safety of citizens against the right to freedom of speech, noting the absence of a willing audience.

University of California v Bakke (1978) - 5-4 ruling that race could be taken into account when deciding admission to a university but that race should not be the only factor. This was a very controversial ruling with six different opinions written by the justices.

Fullilove v Klutznik (1980) - 6-3 ruling that the affirmative action provisions of a public works act were constitutional

Memphis Fire Department v Stotts (1984) - ruled that racial quotas did not take precedence over length of service in redundancy cases.

Grove City College v Bell (1984) - 6-3 ruling that the 1972 Education Act could be used to limit the use of federal  funding to prevent discrimination ( coercive federalism in action).

Johnson v Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County (1987) - 6-3 ruling constitutional an affirmative action programme for promoting women. BW, AS, WHR dissenting.

Wygant v Jackson Board of Education (1988) - 5-4 ruling against the use of affirmative action policy in teacher redundancies.

City of Richmond v Croson (1989) - 6-3 ruling that the practice of giving a quota of contracts to minority-owned businesses was unconstitutional. NB. This ruling and other minority rights removed by the Rehnquist Court were revived by the 1991 Civil Right Act. This was the first time a majority on the Court endorsed a strict scrutiny approach. O’C wrote the majority opinion stating that strict scrutiny could be used with affirmative action cases.

Martin v Wilks (1989) - 5-4 ruling that narrowed the scope for affirmative action programmes.

Adarand v Pena (1995) -5-4 ruling that affirmative action programmes could only be deemed constitutional if they were ‘narrowly tailored’, and designed to achieve a ‘compelling government interest’. A landmark ruling that showed the Court reflecting public opinion eg. California Proposition 209. This showed the Court applying strict scrutiny rather than rational test.

Lowell v Griffin (1938) - 8-0 ruling that the licensing of Jehovah’s Witnesses infringed their 1st Amendment guarantee of the freedom of religion.

Minersville School District v Gobitis (1940) - 8-1 ruling that a compulsory flag salute in schools did not infringe the religious freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses under the 1st Amendment.

Jones v Opelika (1942) - overturned the Lowell ruling over the licensing of religious groups.

Virginia Board of Education v Barnette (1943) - ruling overturning the Gobitis ruling. The Court now seemed to act in accordance with Justice Harlan Stone’s ‘footnote four’ which argued for the protection of minorities who would always lose out in the political arena.

Engel v Vitale (1962) - 7-1 ruling that struck down a non-denominational prayer which began the school day in New York schools.

Abington School District v Schempp (1963) - 8-1 ruling that prayers in a public school were unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment.

Epperson v Arkansas (1968) - ruled that a state ban on the teaching of Darwinism was unconstitutional.

Lynch v Donelly (1984) - 5-4 ruling that a public display of a nativity scene in a school in Pawtucket was constitutional.

Wallas v Jaffee (1985) - 6-3 ruling on the unconstitutionality of school prayers again, this time in a case in Alabama.

Aguilar v Felton (1985) - ruling that banned taxpayer paid teachers from entering church school property to offer help.

Edwards v Aguilar (1987) - 7-2 ruling that Louisiana’s Balanced Treatment Act which required schools to teach creationism alongside Darwinism was unconstitutional as it was an attempt to advance a religious belief.

Zobrest v Catalina Foothills School District (1992) - ruled that public school could pay for an interpreter for deaf girl at a private religious school.

Lambs Chapel v Center Moriches Union Free School (1992) - ruled that a school district could not ban a religious group from using school premises for a religious meeting after school hours.

Lukini Babalu Aye v Hialeah (1992) - ruled that a Florida City ban on animal sacrifice infringed the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

Agostini v Felton (1997) - 5-4 ruling that allowed federally paid teachers to give extra classes in church schools to disadvantaged children. The ‘Lemon’ test was applied (Lemon v Kurtzman, 1971), whereby to be constitutional a law or practice should have a secular purpose, not primarily advance religion, and not entangle church and state. This overturned the 1985 ruling in Aguilar.

City of Boerne v Flores (1997) - 6-3 ruling that struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which had reversed a previous Court ruling. The RFRA sought to help individuals exempt themselves from general state laws on religious grounds. The SC was challenged unsuccessfully by Congress.

Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (2000) - 6-3 ruling that a Texas school could not allow a 'prayer' to be said before high school football games. The student led prayer violated the Establishment clause of the constitution. JPS wrote the opinion; WHR the dissent.

Mitchell v Helms (2000) - 4-2-3 ruling that the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act did not violate the Church-State divide following Agostini v Felton (1997) and the fact that aid was distributed on secular criteria with no favour to religious schools.

Good News Club v Milford Central School (2001) - 6-3 ruling that it is not possible to prevent a group from using a public facility because of the group's religious viewpoint as a ban violates the 1st Amendment. 

Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) - ruled that slavery was constitutional based on a defence of states rights to decide their own laws.

Plessy v Ferguson (1896) - ruled that the 14th Amendment permitted ‘separate but equal treatment’, ie. segregation. This defended the rights of states to run their own affairs.

Grovey v Townsend (1935) - ruling that blacks excluded from the Democrat primary in Texas by the white Democrat Party were not protected by the 14th Amendment in such ‘private’matters.

Smith v Allwright (1944) - ruling that struck down the all-white primary in Texas upheld by Grovey.

Brown v Board of Education, Topeka (1954) - a unanimous ruling that overturned Plessey and declared segregation in education unconstitutional. NB. It took a long time to apply this ruling and it became a federalism question of states rights against the wishes of Congress and Federal Government.

Cooper v Aaron (1958) - 9-0 ruling that upheld the Brown (1954) desegregation order and stated that SC decisions were constitutional law and not simply interpretations that could be ignored as some southern states had claimed. This was an attempt to force Arkansas to desegregate it’s schools in Little Rock having ignored the Brown ruling.

Griffin v County School Board of Prince Edward County (1964) - ruled that desegregation could not be avoided by the closing down of schools.

Green v County School Board of New Kent County (1968) - ruled that free choice desegregation plans were only acceptable if effectively ending desegregation.

Alexander v Holmes County Board of Education (1969) - ruled that it was mandatory to desegregate school immediately in line with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education (1971) - 9-o ruling that the bussing of pupils in order to desegregate schools was constitutional.

Batson v Kentucky (1986) - 7-2 ruling that prosecutors could not use challenges to remove potential black jurors in cases with black defendants. WHR and Burger dissenting.

US v Stanley (1987) - 5-4 ruling in favour of the Pentagon denying members of the armed forces the right to sue. The case related to secret LSD tests on soldiers in the 1950s.

Patterson v McLean Credit Union (1989) - ruled that a 1986 law re-discrimination in the hiring of employees did not apply to lay-offs, and limited an employees ability to sue for damages if subjected to racial harassment. This was overturned by the 1991 Civil Rights Act. A very controversial case with the ABA, 47 State Governors, and 66 Senators filing amicus briefs to persuade the Court not to overturn an earlier ruling in Runyon (1976). An activist court in action. NB. a 9-0 ruling on one issue; 5-4 on the other.

Wards Cove Packing v San Antonio (1989) - 5-4 ruling that the burden of proof of discrimination lay with the plaintiff not the employer. This hit affirmative action programmes as well.

Skinner v Railway Labor Executives Association (1989) - ruled that the testing of employees by an employer for drug or alcohol use was constitutional.

Bragdon v Abbott (1998) - 5-4 ruling that a woman who is HIV-positive has a ‘disability’ and has rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sutton v United Air Lines, Inc. (1999) - ruled that whether someone is counted as disabled under the American with Disabilities Act should be made in the light of corrective measures eg. glasses in this case over applicants for pilots jobs with myopia.

Albertsons Inc. v Kirkingburg (1999) - ruling that an employer did not have to justify sacking an employee with seriously impaired vision under the ADA when federal safety regulations have to be enforced.

Olmstead v L.C. (1999) - ruling that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibition of discriminatory treatment meant that persons with mental disabilities should be placed in communities rather than in institutions.

Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corp. (1999) - ruling that an individual did not have the right to pursue an ADA claim when in receipt of SSDI benefits having become severely disabled and unable to return to their former job.

Saenz v Roe (1999) - ruling that California could not limit new residents to the benefits they would have received in their former state of residence as this amounted an unconstitutional restriction on their freedom of travel.

Rice v Cayetano (2000) - 5-2-2 ruling that Hawaii's denial of Rice's right to vote in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs violated the 15th Amendment. Rice was not a 'Hawaiian' by OHA standards and as such did not qualify to vote. The Court ruled that this constituted a racial preference in a State election and could not stand.

Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v Garrett (2001) - 5-4 ruling lawsuits for money damages brought against the State under the Americans with Disabilities Act were not allowed under the 11th Amendment.

Pollard v E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (2001) - 8-0 ruling that front pay is not an element of compensatory damages and subject to a damages cap therefore.

Alexander v Sandoval (2001) - 5-4 ruling that an individual did not have the right to challenge an Alabama state law making English the official language and using only English in it's driving exams under a federal barring federal funding to anyone who excludes individuals 'on the ground of race, colour, or national origin'. A win for states rights once again and a blow to federal regulation.

PGA Tour Inc v Martin (2001) - 7-2 ruling that the Americans With Disabilities Act does apply to the PGA tour because it is open to the public, albeit a skilled few. The case was about whether Martin could use a golf cart in PGA competitions due to a circulatory disorder. Walking was judged peripheral to the game.

Saucier v Katz (2001) - 8-1 ruling that the reasonableness measure in the Fourth Amendment over excessive force differs from the reasonableness inquiry for a qualified immunity defence. The case concerned an animal rights protestor who was shoved into a police van.

Correctional Services Corp. v Malesko (2001) -5-4 ruling that a Bivens action did not extend to confer a right to recover damages against a private entity.

Toyota Motor Manuf. v Williams (2002) - 9-0 ruling that determining whether someone is disabled under the ADA for work also requires the court to consider their disability regarding normal domestic tasks. Williams didn't qualify therefore.

Trop v Dulles (1958) - ruled that the death penalty was permissible but that the meaning of the 8th Amendment’s ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ was not permanently fixed, but drew meaning from the standards of the day.

McGautha v California (1971) - ruled that it was not necessary to provide separate trial and sentencing hearings.

Furman v Georgia (1972) - 5-4 ruling that mandatory death penalties were unconstitutional. Unusual given that 38 states had the death penalty on their books.

Gregg v Georgia (1976) - 7-2 ruling that the death penalty was not inherently a cruel or unusual punishment, but that there should be no mandatory death sentences. This meant that the jury had to reach a guilty verdict and then decide the punishment eg. Timothy McVeigh death sentence.

McCleskey v Kemp (1987) - 5-4 ruling that death penalty stood despite claim that executions were racially biased against blacks in Southern states. A defeat for the liberal Brennan.

Thompson v Oklahoma (1988) - 5-3 ruling and narrow opinion that a 15 year old should not be executed. O’Connor was the key vote.

Stanford v Kentucky (1989) - 5-4 ruling that the execution of juveniles was not prohibited by the constitution.

Penry v Lynaugh (1989) - ruled that the execution of a mentally retarded man was constitutional.

1992 SC in 7-2 ruling overturns the appeal and stay of execution of Robert Harris and prohibited any further appeals in lower courts. The same happens with Roger Coleman whom many considered to be innocent.

Herrera v Collins (1993) - 6-3 ruling that a claim of innocence did not entitle a defendant to a second appeal hearing. NB. This position was moderated in Schlup v Delo (1995).

Stewart v Martinez-Villareal (1998) - 7-2 ruling that the 1996 Effective Death Penalty Act did not restrict the right to claim insanity by death-row inmates

Calderon, Warden et al v Ashmus, and others similarly situated (1998) - 9-0 ruling that the 1996 EDPA was constitutional.

Shafer v South Carolina (2001) - 7-2 ruling that a death penalty defendant should have been allowed to tell the jury that he would be ineligible for parole if given a life sentence. The trial court judge refused to allow this and the jury couldn't then make an informed decision about the death sentence.

Penry v Johnson (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the admission of a psychiatrists report on a defendants dangerousness used by the prosecution at sentencing did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights as the report had also been used by the defence. 

Colegrove v Green (1946) - 4-3 ruling that malapportionment was not a matter for judicial review.

Baker v Carr (1962) - overturned Colegrove and ruled that reapportionment in Tennessee was necessary under the 14th Amendment.

Wesberry V Saunders (1964) - ruled that electoral districts should be approximately equal in population terms.

Reynolds v Simms (1966) - ruled that the principle of ‘one man, one vote, one value’ should apply.

Buckley v Valeo (1976) - ruled that sections of the 1974 FECA restricting ‘soft money’ violated the 1st Amendment. Various votes were taken on different sections of the case.

Federal Election Commission v NICPAC (1985) - ruled that independent spending by PACs could not be limited as it would infringe freedom of speech.

Davis v Bandemer (1986) - ruled that Indiana’s congressional districts should not be redrawn unless positive proof of racial gerrymandering was brought to light.

Chissom v Roemer (1991) - 6-3 ruling that the Voting Rights Act did apply to the election of judges. AS, WHR, AK dissented.

Shaw v Reno (1992) - 5-4 ruling that white voters could challenge the legality of redrawing congressional districts along racial lines - the ‘North Carolina Snake’.

Growe v Emison (1992) - ruled that a state court had supremacy over a federal court in redistricting cases.

Miller v Johnson (1995) - a landmark ruling using strict scrutiny regarding affirmative action and the racial gerrymandering of congressional districts. Racially drawn districts were not unconstitutional per se, but ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to justify them.

Shaw et al v Hunt, Governor of North Carolina (1996) - this followed up Shaw and ruled that the redistricting plan did not pass the test of strict scrutiny.

Bush, Governor of Texas v Vera et al (1996) - another redistricting and racial gerrymandering case involving the 14th Amendment. Three of Texas’ new districts were ruled unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny applied again.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v FEC (1996) - a case regarding soft money, in this case an advert attacking the Democrat candidate. The SC was divided but ruled that such spending was in line with the 1st Amendment.

Arkansas Educational TV Network v Forbes (1998) - 6-3 ruling that public TV stations did not need to invite all ballot-qualified fringe candidates to take part in TV election debates.

FEC v Akins et al (1998) - 6-3 ruling that voters could challenge a FEC decision not to force AIPAC to disclose information under the 1971 FECA. The Court could not decide whether AIPAC was a PAC or not.

Department of Commerce v United States House (1999) - ruling that the Census Bureau’s planned use of sampling from the census to determine population for congressional reapportionment was not legal under the Census Act.

Hunt v Cromartie (1999) - ruling that there was insufficient evidence that the North Carolina legislature was conscious of race when redrawing it’s 12th Congressional district.

Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999) - ruling that upheld a challenge to Colorado’s ballot initiative process and the conditions the state placed upon the people gathering names.

Guitierrez v Ada (2000) - 9-0 ruling that an election in Guam (US dependency) did not require a run-off despite the winning candidate not quite receiving 50% + 1 of the votes cast.

Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000)- 6-3 ruling that Buckley v Valeo limits applied to federal elections were also applicable to State elections if a compelling interest (eg. avoiding corruption) was apparent.

Reno v Bossier Parish School Board (2000) - 5-4 ruling that a redistricting plan did not need preclearance from the Attorney General or District Court for D.C. The plan did not have a discriminatory purpose so no preclearance was required

California Democratic Party et al v Bill Jones, Sec of State for California (2000) - 7-2 ruling that California's blanket primary created by Proposition 198 in 1996 violated a political parties right of association under the First Amendment. This was because non-party members could determine a party's candidate.

Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000) - a per curiam decision (a collective opinion without identifiable author/s) overturning the opinion of the Florida State Supreme Court that the Florida legislature was not acting in accordance with the state constitution. This was a crucial part of the 2000 Presidential election legal battle for the Florida vote.

Bush v Gore (2000) - 5-4 ruling (per curiam with concurrence by WHR; dissents by DS, JPS, SB, RBG) that the use of standardless manual recounts violated the Equal Protection Clause. This overturned the Florida Supreme Court on the basis that no common standard for the recounting of contested votes in Florda's counties was in place making equal protection of voter's rights and due process impossible. Seven justices agreed with but 5 found it inappropriate to return it to the Florida SC to set standards for a recount. This ruling effectively decided who would be the President of the USA.

Cook v Gralike (2001) - 9-0 ruling that Missouri voters amendment to their State Constitution supporting term limits for Congressional candidates was unconstitutional. This followed the US Term Limits v Thornton (1995) case and the amendment allowed the state to print on the ballot paper whether the candidate supported term limits or not. This in effect prejudiced certain candidates so Gralike claimed and the SC agreed.

Hunt v Cromartie (2001) -5-4 ruling that congressional redistricting does not violate equal protection when race is not the predominant factor considered in redrawing district boundaries. 

FEC v Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) – 5-4 ruling that limitations on hard money spending imposed by the FEC are unconstitutional in this case but that the other FEC limits of $1000 and $5000 can remain in place. Rational test applied by the majority as a strict scrutiny approach under the 1st Amendment was rejected.

Immigration and Naturalisation Service v Chadhua (1982) - 7-2 ruling that the use of the legislative veto by Congress after agreement with the President was unconstitutional as it infringed the separation of powers.

Bowsher v Synar (1986) - 7-2 ruling that the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers with it’s legislative-executive commission. White and Blackmun dissented.

Nixon v US (1992) - ruled that only the Senate could decide impeachment procedures for Presidents, federal judges or officials (Nixon being a federal judge under impeachment).

US v Richard Nixon (1974) - 8-0 ruling that rejected Nixon’s claim of executive privilege and forced him to hand over most of the Watergate tapes.

Goldwater v Carter (1979) - ruled that the President could terminate a treaty and Congress had no right in the matter, unlike the ratification process.

Haig v Agee (1981) - 7-2 ruling that the Executive can regulate the foreign travel of US citizens by withholding passports or travel documents.

Paula Corbin Jones v William Jefferson Clinton (1997) - 9-0 ruling that the President was not immune from a civil case whilst in office - the rule of law had no exception, executive privilege did not apply and the separation of powers was not infringed by the President appearing in a court of law. Strict scrutiny applied.

Raines, Director OMB v Byrd et al (1997) - an appeal case - 7-2 ruling that the line-item veto power given to the President could not be challenged until it had been used. NB. BC used the veto for the first time in August 1997 which triggered cases about it’s constitutionality. These will arrive on the SC’s docket in the next two years.

New York v Clinton, President of the US (1998) - 6-3 ruling that the line-item veto power was unconstitutional because in effect it gave the President lawmaking powers.

Snake River Potato Growers v Rubin (1998) - challenge to the line-item veto power.

Swidler & Berlin and James Hamilton v US (1998) - 6-3 ruling that the notes of the suicided Vince Foster, subpoenaed by Ken Starr investigating Travelgate 1993, were protected by attorney-client privilege even though he was dead.

US v Sun-Diamond Growers of California (1999) - ruling that the government did not need to show that gifts given to the Secretary of Agriculture were for any particular act by the official.

FDA v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000) - 5-4 ruling; O'Connor opinion; that the FDA does not have the authority under the FD & Cosmetic Act to regulate tobacco. The majority examined Congress's original intent in the Act.

Dept of the interior v Klamath Water Users Protective Association (2001) - 9-0 ruling that documents passed between several Indian tribes and the D of I are not exempt from the terms of the Freedom of Information Act

US v Peters (1809) - ruling that the Pennsylvania legislature could not prevent the enforcement of a federal law.

Fletcher v Peck (1810) - 4-1 ruling that declared a state law unconstitutional for the first time. Significant because it meant that State laws were inferior to the Constitution; the SC was superior to the states.

Martin v Hunter’s Lessee (1816) - the Marshall Court ruled 6-0 that Virginia had equal status with the federal government but that the SC had judicial supremacy over the states and state courts. This was dual federalism.

McCulloch v Maryland (1819) - 7-0 ruling that allowed Congress ‘implied powers’ in the Constitution. The case regarded the establishment of a national bank free from state’s taxation. A triumph for national government.

Gibbons v Ogden (1824) - ruled that federal government could regulate interstate commerce, paving the way for federal dominance.

Barron v Baltimore (1833) - ruling that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the states.

Charles River Bridge v Warren Bridge (1837) - ruling that property rights should give way to the ‘prosperity of the community’. This reinforced states rights to make contracts, regarding toll bridges in this case.

Luther v Borden (1849) - ruling that the dispute between the Rhode Island state government and a reform movement led by Thomas Door who had established a rival constitution and government was a ‘political question’ and should be decided by the political process and not the judiciary.

Munn v Illinois (1877) - 7-2 ruling that upheld states power to set the rates charged by grain elevator operators.

Lone Wolf v Hitchcock (1903) - 9-0 ruling that allowed Congress near absolute power over Indian affairs.

Robinson v California (1962) - ruled that a state could not make drug addiction a crime under the 8th Amendment.

Malloy v Hogan (1964) - 5-4 ruling that states must observe the 5th Amendment privilege.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) - ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the grounds that local race discrimination had a negative impact interstate commerce.

Katzenbach v McClung (1964) - 9-0 ruling that reinforced Heart of Atlanta.

South Carolina v Katzenbach (1966) - 8-1 ruling that the 1965 Voting Rights Act did not violate state’s rights.

National League of Cities v Usery (1970) - 5-4 ruling that Congress had overreached the ISC with provisions in labor laws.

South Dakota v Dole (1987) - 7-2 ruling constitutional a condition in the granting of federal road building grants to states that the states raise their drinking age to 21 or lose the grants - coercive federalism accepted.

Gregory v Ashcroft (1991) - ruled that age discrimination clauses in an amendment to the Missouri State Constitution did not override another clause containing a mandatory retirement age for state judges.

US v Lopez (1995) - 5-4 ruling that a federal law banning the carrying of guns in or near school, the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act, was unconstitutional as it exceeded the provisions of the interstate commerce clause. This was a landmark ruling preventing the extension of federal intervention at the expense of the states.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida (1996) - 5-4 ruling saying that Congress did not have the constitutional power to pass a law that undermined the rights of states and the right-to-sue of individuals. The issue was the growing casino business on Indian reservations. Carried on the trend of Lopez (majority = WHR, AS, CT,AK, SDO).

Atherton v FDIC (1997) - ruling that federal law sets a floor regarding gross negligence in addition to state law.

Boggs v Boggs (1997) - 5-4 ruling that state community property law is overridden by the 1974 Employment Retirement Income Security Act.

Printz, Sheriff, Ravelli County, Montana v US (1997) - 5-4 ruling that the federal government could not force local authorities in the states to make background checks on people who want to buy handguns as outlined in the 1993 Handgun Violence Protection Act (‘Brady Bill’). The ruling referred to ‘dual sovereignty’ between states and federal government, and the need to protect it. Same five justices in majority as in Seminole and Lopez.

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v Manufacturing Technologies Inc. (1998) - 6-3 ruling that a tribe was not sovereign and legally liable for commercial activities off-reservation. A ruling against states powers defending federal jurisdiction.

Montana v Crow Indian Tribe (1998) - ruling favouring states tax collection liability after Montana illegally collected taxes on coal from the Crow reservation.

New Jersey v New York (1998) - 6-3 ruling that New Jersey has jurisdiction of Ellis Island.

Cass County, Montana v Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (1998) - 9-0 ruling that state and local governments may impose taxes on lands purchased by the government but re-purchased by the tribe.

Alden v Maine (1999) - 5-4 ruling that states were immune from being sued under federal law. The case concerned the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Board v College Savings Bank; College Savings Bank v Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Board (1999) - 5-4 ruling that states were immune from being sued, rejecting Congress’s 1992 amendments to patent and trademark laws.

Jefferson County v Acker (1999) - ruling in support of a County occupational tax upon two federal judges who held court in the county.

Humana Inc. v Forsyth (1999) - ruling that the McCarran-Ferguson Act which grants the states broad authority to regulate the insurance industry and prohibits the application of federal law that would interfere with state regulation does not block the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisation Act 1961.

Minnesota v Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (1999) - ruling that the Indians still held their usufructuary rights to land ceded to the US in 1837. A ruling for the Native Americans against the state of Minnesota.

Kimel v Florida Board of Regents (2000) - 5-4 ruling that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 does contain a clear statement of      Congress’s intention to overrule states immunity but that this exceeded Congress’s authority under the 14th Amendment because age is not a ‘suspect class’ and therefore covered by the equal protection clause. The SC, as in Lopez, noted that the States nearly all had age discrimination laws anyway so Congress was acting unnecessarily anyway.

Reno v Condon (2000) - 9-0 ruling that the Drivers Privacy Protection Act was a valid exercise of Congressional power. The DPPA limits the dissemination of personal information contained in driver records after some states were selling such information. The SC found the DPPA was a valid exercise of Congress power under the Commerce Clause, unlike New York v US, Printz v US.

US v Locke (2000) - 9-0 ruling that Washington state's maritime regulations were pre-empted by federal regulations for oil tankers.  This marked a ruling for federal power over the states.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v Shanklin (2000) - 7-2 ruling that the Federal Railroad Safety Act (1970) pre-empted state legal actions regarding warning devices installed with federal funds.

Williams v Taylor (2000) - 9-0 ruling that a federal court may only take a case if the state court resulted in a decision that clearly went against federal law or the SC. In the case Williams's lawyer failed to introduce mitigating evidence during the sentencing part of the trial and was sentenced to death. The Sc ruled that Williams had been deprived of his constitutional right to provide the jury with mitigating evidence.

Arizona v California (2000) - 6-3 ruling that use of water from the Colorado river was not precluded by an earlier decision in 1964 (Arizona v California).

Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council (2000) - 9-0 ruling that Massachusetts so-called 'Burma Law' which restricted the authority of state agencies to purchase goods or services from companies doing business with Burma (Myanmar) was unconstitutional under the Federal Supremacy clause. The Sc said the Mass. Act was a barrier to a federal act which authorised the President to control sanctions against Burma.

Egelhoff v Egelhoff (2001) - 7-2 ruling that the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempted a Washington state law that revoked the status of a spouse as a beneficiary upon divorce.

Brentwood Academy v Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) - 5-4 ruling that a statewide association did engage in state action when enforcing a rule against a member school. The majority asserted that 'entwinement' of the association with the State was sufficient to avoid infringing the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Lewis v Lewis & Clark Maritime inc. (2001) - 9-0 ruling that state courts may adjudicate claims against vessel owners so long as the owner's right to seek limitation of liability is protected under the Limitation of Liability Act.

Buckman Co v Plaintiff's Legal Committee (2001) - 9-0 ruling that state law 'fraud-on-the-FDA' claims are preempted by the Medical devices Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The case involved orthopaedic bone screws and the SC ruled for only the FDA to take claims, not the State.

New Hampshire v Maine (2001) - 9-0 ruling that New Hampshire's claim over the Piscatequa river was not valid due to an agreement in the 1970s that referred to the 'middle of the river as the boundary.

Booth v Churner (2001) - 9-0 ruling that state prison inmates seeking help under the federal Prisoners Litigation Reform Act 1995 must exhaust all available remedies at state level before suing in federal court.

Atkinson Trading Co v Shirley (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon non-members of the Navajo tribe was invalid as the Indian tribe only had sovereign jurisdiction over members.

US v Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (2001) - 9-0 ruling that there is no 'medical necessity' exception to the Controlled Substances Act and therefore the manufacture and distribution of marijuana under the California initiative measure Compassionate Use Act 1996 was invalid and the Congressional law took precedence.

 Alabama v Bozeman (2001) 9-0 ruling for most parts that the literal language of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (states keep individuals after they have served their sentences so that they can be tried in another state for another crime) bars further proceedings once a defendant is returned. Bozeman had his state charges dropped.

Kansas v Colorado (2001) - unanimous in part, concurrence in part, that a state may recover monetary damages from another state in an original action without violating the 11th Amendment.

Nevada v Hicks (2001) 9-0 ruling that a tribal court may not assert jurisdiction over civil claims against state officials who enter tribal land to execute search warrants against tribal members who have violated state law outside the reservation.

Lorillard Tobacco Co v Reilly (2001) mixed rulings that state regulations governing outdoor and point-of-sale advertising of tobacco products are pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act and the state regulations also violated the 1st Amendment.

Idaho v US (2001) - 5-4 ruling that title to part of the Coeur d'Alene region is held by the federal government in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe.

Chicksaw Nation v US (2001) - 7-2 ruling that the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act did not exempt tribes from paying gambling related taxes.

New York Times v US (1971) - 6-3 ruling that the publishing of the Pentagon Papers was legal under the 1st Amendment.

Boos v Barry (1987) - 5-3 ruling (vacancy on the Court) upholding the 1st Amendment right over protests near embassies.

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmaier (1987) - 5-3 ruling (WHR, BW, SDO, AS, JPS) upholding a school principal’s right to censor a student newspaper.

Sable Communications v Federal Communications Commission (1988) - 9-0 ruling that struck down a federal law banning dial-a-porn telephone services.

Hustler Magazine v Falwell (1988) - 8-0 ruling that a satirical depiction of Revd. Jerry Falwell in Hustler magazine was protected by the First Amendment and could not be sued over.

Texas v Johnson (1989) - 5-4 ruling that a Texas law that banned the the burning of the US flag was unconstitutional. Congress was outraged and passed the Flag Protection Act 1989 in response.

Florida Star v B.J.F. (1989) - 6-3 ruling overturning a judgement against a newspaper that printed by mistake the name of a rape victim. Judged to be lawfully obtained information.

US v Eichman (1990) - ruled that flag burning was constitutional under the 1st Amendment and struck down the 1989 Flag Protection Act.

Barnes v Glen Theatre Inc. (1991) - 5-4 ruling that go-go dancing was protected by the 1st Amendment but that it could be regulated.

Reno, Attorny General of the US v American Civil Liberties Union (1997) - 7-2 ruling that the Communications Decency Act 1996 was unconstitutional as it infringed the 1st and 5th Amendments. Strict scrutiny was applied with the act judged too broad and vague. WHR and SDO were the two dissenters.

National Endowment for the Arts et al v Karen Finlay et al (1998) - 8-1 ruling that funding for the NEA could be tied into a decency criteria without infringing freedom of speech, or by being too vague.

Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association v US (1999) - ruled that a federal law that banned advertising of casino gambling did not apply to ads in states where casino gambling is legal.

Dental Association v Federal Trade Commission (1999) - ruling in favour of the FTC’s regulation of a non-profit association advertising for a profit making business.

LAPD v United Reporting Publishing Corp. (1999) - 7-2 ruling that California’s law that makes available the names of crime victims and arrestees is not overbroad and does come under the First Amendment.

Regents of University of Wisconsin System v Southworth (2000) - 6-3 ruling that the 1st Amendment allows a public university to charge its students a fee to fund a programme to facilitate extracurricular speech if the program is viewpoint neutral.

City of Erie v PAP's (2000) - 5-4 ruling in different parts (O'Connor opinion with WHR, AK, DS and SB) that the city of Erie could enforce a public indecency law against the nude erotic dancing performed at PAP's. This overturned the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which had applied strict scrutiny to the Erie law. The SC applied rational test to the law.

Yarnell v Cuffley (2001) - the Court refuses to hear an appeal from a Missouri court over the Ku Klux Klan's participation in an  'adopt-a-highway' anti-litter program. This decision not to grant certiorari will allow the KKK to have it's name displayed along the stretch of road near St. Louis.

Legal services Corp v Velazquez (2001) - 5-4 ruling Congress acted unconstitutionally by prohibiting LSC funding to any organisation representing clients attempting to challenge or amend welfare law. It broke the 1st Amendment protection of freedom of ideas.

Shaw v Murphy (2001) - 9-0 ruling that prisoners do not have a First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to other prisoners if the prison does not allow it.

US v United Foods (2001) 6-3 ruling that statutory money raising assessments for the purpose of general product promotion violated the 1st Amendment. The case concerned mushroom growing and promotion.

Thomas v Chicago Park District (2001) - 9-0 ruling that a municipal park ordinance requiring individuals to obtain a permit before conducting a large scale event was constitutional under the First Amendment.

Gideon v Wainwright (1963) - ruled that a defendant had a right to a lawyer in a state court when arrested.

Escobedo v Illinois (1964) - 5-4 ruling that defendants had a right to a lawyer in all courts.

Twining v New Jersey (1965) - ruled that state judges may not comment adversely on the failure of a defendant to testify.

Miranda v Arizona (1966) - 5-4 ruling that remaining silent under the 5th Amendment before trial was a constitutional right. A defendant had to be read their rights.

Berger v New York (1966) - ruled that a wiretap without a warrant violated the 4th amendment.

Harris v New York (1970) - ruling that modified Miranda in allowing some use of unwarned suspects statements.

US v District Court (1972) - ruled that wiretaps had to have judicial authorisation.

US v Havens (1980) - ruled for a reduction in the limits on a court using illegally obtained evidence to prosecute a defendant.

New York v Quarles (1984) - ruled that if public safety was threatened a suspect could be questioned before being read his rights.

Payner v Tennessee (1991) - 6-3 ruling that the introduction of evidence about the victim and survivors at the sentencing stage of a trial was permissible.

Minnesota v Dickinson (1992) - ruled that a police officer may seize drugs and other contraband felt in clothing during a search for weapons.

Keeney v Tamayo-Reyes (1992) - 5-4 ruling that restricted the right of appeal from a lower court. Reyes did not understand the word ‘manslaughter’ and had appealed.

US v Williams (1992) - 5-4 ruling that federal prosecutors could withhold from a grand jury material favourable to the defendant.

Alvarez v DEA (1992) - 6-3 ruling that a forcible abduction from abroad by the DEA was not prohibited by the constitution and should not prevent trial in the US. NB. Alvarez was eventually acquitted of the murder of a DEA agent in Mexico.

Cipollene v Liggett et al (1992) - 7-2 ruling that smokers could sue tobacco companies under state liability laws.

McNary v Haitian Centers Council (1993) - 8-1 ruling that the returning of refugees did not infringe national or international laws protecting asylum seekers.

Richards v Wisconsin (1997) - 9-0 ruling that a failure of the police to knock on a door before entering did not infringe the 4th Amendment. Rational test used here in favour of the police.

Chandler et al v Miller, Governor of Georgia (1997) -8-1 ruling that the automatic drug testing of state employees infringed the 4th Amendment as the criminal threat was insufficient reason - strict scrutiny applied.

Vacco v Quill (1997) & Washington v Glucksberg (1997) - both ruled that laws prohibiting assisted suicides are constitutional.

Kansas v Hendricks (1997) - 5-4 ruling that Kansas’ Sexually Violent Predator Act was constitutional meaning that states could keep such people locked up even when they have served their prison sentences.

US v Scheffer (1998) - 8-1 ruling that military court martial rules preventing the use of polygraph evidence does not infringe the rights of the accused.

County of Sacramento et al v Lewis (1998) - 9-0 ruling that police are not liable for injuries or death arising from a high speed pursuit unless the accident is ‘conscience-shocking’.

Bousley v US (1998) -7-2 ruling that an appeal was allowable because the court needed to show ‘active use’ of a firearm and drugs in order for a three-strikes sentence to be made.

Edwards v US (1998) - 9-0 ruling that a judge could sentence on an amount of evidence (possession of crack cocaine) that the jury found insufficient to find guilty for.

Campbell v Louisiana (1998) - 9-0 ruling that a white murder defendant could appeal on the basis that the jury had no blacks and therefore infringed his 14th Amendment rights.

US v Cabrales (1998) - 9-0 ruling that the trial for a money laundering case should take place where the money was laundered rather than where the other offences were committed ie, in Florida following cocaine sales in Missouri.

Muscarello v US (1998) -5-4 ruling that gave the ‘carries a firearm’ section of a federal law a broad construction to apply it to a gun locked in the glove compartment of a car.

Hopkins v Reeves (1998) - 8-1 ruling that the failure to instruct a jury on 2nd degree murder and manslaughter charges and the death penalty, was still acceptable because it is determined by a judicial panel in Nebraska and not the jury.

US v Bajakajian (1998) - 5-4 ruling that federal fines and forfeitures cannot be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Government cannot seize money off a person simply because he did not properly declare the money before leaving the US.

Hudson v US (1998) -9-0 ruling that the constitution’s double-jeopardy clause does not bar the prosecution of people who have already been forced to pay civil fines for regulatory wrongdoing.

New Mexico, ex. rel. Manuel Ortiz v Reed (1998) - ruling that reversed the ruling of the New Mexico SC that Ortiz should not be extradited from NM to Ohio because he was a refugee from injustice.

US v Aloyzas Balsys (1998) - 7-2 ruling that the 5th Amendment privilege did not apply where self-incrimination could lead to prosecution in foreign countries. A war-crimes case.

Knowles v Iowa (1998) - ruling that a police officer did not have the right to search a car stopped for a speeding  violation where the driver was not arrested.

City of Chicago v Morales (1999) - ruled that an anti-loitering law aimed at gangs was an unconstitutional restriction on personal liberty.

Wilson v Layne (1999) - ruling that news reporters and photographers accompanying the police as they enter a suspect’s home violates the Fourth Amendment.

Wyoming v Houghton (1999) - ruling that the searching of a passenger in a car which was stopped by the police to search the driver for drugs was allowable.

Minnesota v Carter (1999) - ruling that a police officer watching an apartment through a drawn window blind where the occupants were bagging cocaine was not violating the defendants Fourth Amendment rights.

Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v Carmichael (1999) - ruling that the rules governing the admissibility of expert testimony did apply to non-scientist experts such as engineers.

Lilly v Virginia (1999) - ruling that when a witness at a trial claimed Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination the police were not permitted to use the witnesses statements to the police that incriminated the accused.

Mitchell v US (1999) - ruling that a defendant’s guilty plea did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights in the sentencing phase of the case and the court could not draw an inference from her silence.

New York v Hill (2000) - ruled that an agreement to a trial date with a defence lawyer does not allow the defendant to seek case dismissal on the grounds that extradition from Ohio to New York and the trial did not take place in the statutory period of 180 days.

Martinez v Court of Appeal of California (2000) - 9-0 ruling that the constitutional right to self-representation does not exist on a direct appeal from a criminal conviction.

Illinois v Wardlow (2000) - 5-4 ruling that reasonable suspicion as specified in Terry v Ohio(1968) may arise when a person flees at the sight of a police officer.

US v Martinez-Salazar (2000) - 9-0 ruling that a defendant's right to have ten challenges against potential jurors is not denied when one of the juror's should have been removed anyway.

Smith v Robbins (2000) - 5-4 ruling that states are free to adopt standards for lawyers leaving a case if they consider an appeal to be frivolous as long as the defendant still had the right to appeal advice from a lawyer.

Weeks v Angelone (2000) - 5-4 ruling that the Constitution is not violated when a trial judge gives the jury direction in response to a question about mitigating evidence. Weeks murdered a police officer and thought the judges advice to the jury unreasonable.

Weisgram v Marley Co. (2000) - 9-0 ruling that a federal rule on court procedure did allow the Court of Appeals to dismiss evidence from three witnesses not deemed 'expert' and overturn the jury verdict.

Roe v Flores-Ortega (2000) - 9-0 ruling that a defendant claiming their lawyer was ineffective did show that their lawyer was below a reasonable standard and their poor performance prejudiced the defendant. Flores-Ortega was on a murder charge. A further 6-3 ruling held that a lawyer had a constitutional duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal but this didn't happen in this case.

Rotella v Wood (2000)  - 9-0 ruling that the statute of limitations for civil claims of four years did not start when malpractice was discovered but when Rotella entered the Psychiatric hospital he was trying to sue for keeping him in for too long for profit not medical need. The Court ruled that if Rotella was right, the statute of limitations would be null and void. He left the hospital eight years before the malpractice was uncovered.

Village of Willowbrook v Olech (2000) - the Court held per curiam that Olech had been deliberately differently by the Village over water connections and this violated the Equal Protection Clause.

US v Johnson (2000) - 9-0 ruling (stat. const.) that the length of time served does not affect a sentence of post-imprisonment supervised release. Johnson had served time in prison for for convictions declared invalid but his sentence of 3 years supervised release was not affected by the 2.5 years he spent in jail unnecessarily.

Portuondo v Agard (2000) - 5-2-2 ruling that a prosecutors comments in court that the defendant had the chance to tailor his testimony because he was in court and heard other witnesses evidence did not violate the defendants 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

Free v Abbott Laboratories Co. (2000) - 4-4 per curiam ruling (tied so the lower court ruling stands; O'Connor took no part) on the jurisdiction of federal courts in class action cases. It was ruled that the courts could have jurisdiction over unnamed as well as named plaintiffs.

Bond v US (2000) - 7-2 ruling that a tactile search of a persons carry-on luggage by a law enforcement agent violated the Fourth Amendment because it was beyond what was reasonably expected from a bus employee.

Williams v Taylor (2000) - 9-0 ruling over the AEDPA that an appeal has to have factual basis to a claim and that Williams suffered no lack of diligence in the legal process up to his conviction for murder. The Court adopted a textualist approach to the law. NB. other ruling regarding this case under federalism.

Slack v McDaniel (2000) - 7-2 ruling that a prisoner may seek appeal even if the appeal was lodged prior to the date the AEDPA came into effect.

Beck v Prupis (2000) - 7-2 ruling that a claim for damages by a man who was sacked after learning of his employers corrupt behaviour did not have standing because no actual corrupting damage was done to the individual.

Nelson v Adams USA Inc. (2000) - 9-0 ruling that an award to pay costs in court could not be amended without due process afforded to the individual to contest the costs plea.

Edwards v Carpenter (2000) - 9-0 ruling that a claim of 'ineffective-assistance-of counsel' claim could not excuse another  fault in a case unless the petitioner can show   'cause and prejudice' with regard to the other case.

Carmell v Texas (2000) - 5-4 ruling that Carmell's convictions for sex offences could not be sustained because of the ex post facto clause. This meant that the terms of evidence required for his convictions came into effect after the offences were committed and less evidence was required than before. Carmell was freed and the Court pointed out that the relaease of one delinquent was less harm to the community than the breaking of   a basic rule and principle of justice.

Florida v J.L. (2000) - 9-0 ruling that an anonymous tip lacking any supporting evidence of reliability does not justify a stop and frisk whenever and however  it alleges the illegal possession of a firearm. The search conducted of J.L. was ruled unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Garner v Jones (2000) - 5-4 ruling that under the ex post facto clause the retroactive application of a change in parole law has to be shown by a defendant to lead to a longer period of imprisonment than under the old law to bring a claim. The Court recognised that States needed flexibility in formulating parole procedures with discretion built in.

Miller v French (2000) - 7-2 ruling that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (1995) was constitutional  and that a prison-condition injunction from 1975 could not be overturned by a court under the new legislation.

Carter v US (2000) - 5-4 ruling that a theft of more than $1,000 from a bank is not a lesser offense and cannot be claimed as such by the defendant.

Ramdass v Angelone (2000) - 4-1-4 ruling that a federal habeas claimant was not eligible to instruct the jury that he would never be released during sentencing because at the time he wasn't already ineligible for parole. Ramdass therefore received a death sentence.

US v Hubbell (2000) - 7-2 ruling that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination protects a witness from being compelled to disclose the existence of   incriminating documents that the Government is unable to describe with reasonable accuracy and if the witness produces the documents they cannot be used to prepare criminal charges.

Castillo v US (2000) - 9-0 ruling that a federal law which added 30 years to a sentence if the firearm used in a crime of violence was a 'machine gun'. The SC ruled that the law created a new crime rather than an additional sentencing factor. The case concerned Castillo and other members of the Branch Davidian sect who killed ATF officers during the Waco siege.

Dickerson v US (2000) - 7-2 ruling that a law which made voluntary statements made by suspects during police interrogation admissible in court was unconstitutional and infringed the Miranda rights of the accused . A stare decisis position on Miranda which was deemed as eroded but immutable.

Apprendi v New Jersey (2000) - 5-4 ruling that New Jersey's Hate Crimes Law which extends the term of imprisonment if hate was a part of the crime, was unconstitutional. Apprendi had a 5-10 year sentence extended to 18 years and appealed that his right to due process was infringed as the extended sentence went beyond the normal maximum sentence for the firearms offence.

Artuz v Bennett (2000) - 9-0 ruling that the filing of a habeas corpus application has been carried out when it is accepted by the appropriate court officer.

Cleveland  v United States (2000) - 9-0 ruling that the mail fraud statute does not cover fraudulent applications for permits and licences and the wording of the statute was too broad regarding 'property'.

Ferguson v Charleston (2001) - 6-3 ruling that a state hospital's use of drug tests on patients for law enforcement purposes was an unreasonable search. Ten maternity patients who were arrested after testing positive for cocaine use brought the case.

Buford v United States (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the assessment of an offenders previous convictions when called into consideration for sentencing for a subsequent crime should not be reviewed by an appeal court.

Ohio v Reiner (2001) - a per curiam ruling that a witness who denies all guilt may nonetheless claim the privilege against self-incrimination (the 5th Amendment). The case involved a babysitter and parent and who killed a 2 month old child. The babysitter took the 5th but then gave evidence after an immunity deal.

Fiore v White (2001) - per curiam decision that the due process clause requires that a state must prove all elements of a crime. in the case Fiore was convicted after the Pennsylvania SC ruled a law against him.

Glover v United States (2001) - 9-0 ruling that an error in the sentencing determination under the Sentencing Guidelines was not prejudicial to the defendant.

Selling v Young (2001) - 8-1 ruling that a respondent could not bring a challenge under the double jeopardy clause against the Washington Community Protection Act because it is civil not criminal in nature. The Act allows for sexually violent predators with a mental or personality disorder to be be committed.

Illinois v McArthur (2001) - 8-1 ruling that police officers did not violate the 4th Amendment when they prevented a man from entering his home while obtaining a search warrant. The restraint was judged reasonable because the officers had probable cause. An example of rational test being applied. 

Becker v Montgomery (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the failure to hand sign a notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect and the appellant may cure the lack of a signature when notified of the mistake

Buckhannon Bd & Care Home Inc v West Virginia Dept of Health & Human Resources (2001) 5-4 ruling that the awarding of fees for attorneys depends upon a change in the legal relationship between the parties.

Arkansas v Sullivan (2001) - per curiam decision that a police officer's subjective intentions when making a search play no part in 4th Amendment probable-cause analysis. The SC rebuffed the Arkansas SC saying that states may not make higher constitutional standards than those the SC itself imposes.

Bartnicki v Vopper (2001) - 6-3 ruling that the 1st Amendment protects the disclosure of lawfully obtained information even if the information came from a source that obtained it illegally. The case concerned an illegally recorded mobile phone conversation sent anonymously to a radio station that played it.

Daniels v US (2001) -5-4 ruling that a criminal defendant may not challenge a federal sentence by attacking an earlier conviction. This meant Daniels could be given an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Lackawanna County DA v Coss (2001) - 5-4 ruling that the availability of postconviction relief was limited. Coss could not appeal against earlier sentences being taken into account even though he was trying to appeal against them.

Atwater v Lago Vista (2001) - 5-4 ruling that the 4th Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor offence. The case concerned a woman driving without using seatbelts objecting to being stopped and arrested by a police officer.

Texas v Cobb (2001) - 5-4 ruling that the 6th Amendment right to counsel is offence specific in a case where a prisoner confessed to a burglary and then later, without counsel, he confessed to the murder of a mother and child during the burglary. His appeal was not allowed.

Rogers v Tennessee (2001) 5-4 ruling that the retroactive abolition of an outdated common law rule did not violate due process in a case where a victim died over a year after being stabbed. The common law rule of a 'year and a day' was judged to have never been enforced in the state.

INS v St Cyr (2001) 5-4 ruling that the AEDPA and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 1996 do not prevent a federal court from hearing a habeas corpus challenge even though the Acts came into effect after St Cyr's plea bargain to avoid deportation under IIRIRA.

Calcano-Martinez v INS (2001) 5-4 ruling that federal district courts may hear a habeas corpus petition challenging the deportation of an alien convicted of a crime. The majority argued that Congress had not spoken with sufficient clarity to prevent district courts hearing appeals.

Zadvydas v Davis and Davis v Ma (2001) 5-4 ruling that aliens could be held beyond the statutory 90 day removal time subject to a reasonable time limitation. The case concerned a German immigrant who was to be deported but no country would accept him and a Cambodian immigrant. 

Tyler v Cain (2001) 6-3 ruling that the rule set out in Cage v Louisiana that a  jury instruction by a judge is unconstitutional if the jury understood the instruction to allow conviction without proof beyond reasonable doubt, was not retroactive.

US v Arvizu (2001) - 9-0 ruling that a border patrol agent did have sufficient reason to stop a vehicle that was then found to have 100lbs of marijuana in it.

Kelly v South Carolina (2002) - 5-4 ruling that a defendant did have the right to inform the jury of a life sentence without parole option during the sentencing part of a murder trial.

Kyllo v United States (2001) - 5-4 ruling that searches of private property with infrared sensing devices require a warrant under the 4th Amendment. Stevens dissented by arguing a distinction between invasive surveillance and that sensing 'emissions' ie. a heat sensor in this case detecting marijuana growing.

Duncan v Walker (2001) - 7-2 ruling the filing of a habeas corpus petition does not begin the one limitation period as contained in the AEDPA. 

US v Knights (2001) - 9-0 ruling that a policeman who searched a probationer's apartment without a warrant but with reasonable suspicion did not infringe the Fourth Amendment.

Dusenberry v US (2002) - 5-4 ruling that a police attempt to inform a guilty man of the seizure of his property was good enough even though the man never got the certified letter posted. A victory for the conservatives on the court.

Kansas v Crane (2002) - 7-2 ruling that the US Constitution does not require a finding that a dangerous sexual offender exhibits total or complete lack of control to justify a civil commitment under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act.

Lee v Kemna (2002) - 6-3 ruling over the availability of habeas corpus continuance of a trial overnight in a murder trial in Missouri.

Roster v Goldberg (1981) - ruled constitutional a law exempting women from the selective service register.

Bowers v Hardwick (1986) - 5-4 ruling that homosexuality was not safeguarded by the constitution and states could regulate homosexual activity. Georgia’s ant-sodomy law was at question here.

Rotary Club v Rotary Club of Duarte (1987) - 7-0 ruling that sex discrimination by a private organisation or club was unconstitutional.

Harris v Forklift Systems Inc. (1993) - 9-0 ruling in favour of easier access to court and damages in cases of sexual harassment, following Rotary.

Romer v Evans (1996) - 6-3 ruling that Colorado’s constitutional amendment barring any legislation protecting homosexuals from discrimination was unconstitutional.

US v Virginia Military Institute et al (1996) - 7-1 ruling that women should be able to attend a male-only military academy.

Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services Inc. (1998) - 9-0 ruling that same-sex sexual harassment cases can be brought to court.

Gebser v Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) - 5-4 ruling that school districts cannot be sued by students who have been sexually taunted, groped, or harassed unless a school official knew and did nothing. Majority - SDO, WHR, AS, AK, CT - O’Connor was the pivotal vote and opinion writer.

Burlington Industries v Ellerth, Faragher v Boca Raton (1998) - 7-2 ruling that an employee can be held liable for it’s supervisors sexual harassment even if it did not know of the misconduct, although the employer can defend itself if it shows it took steps to prevent or correct harassment.

Marbury v Madison (1803) - 5-0 ruling that established the principle of judicial review and the SC’s role of defender of the constitution.

Florida v Thomas (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the SC does not have jurisdiction to review a non-final state court judgement as it does not fall into four suitable categories. The case was under the Florida State Supreme Court.

Ohio Forestry Association Inc. v Sierra Club (1998) - 9-0 ruling that the case was not ‘ripe for review’ as no harm had been done by the logging plan that was being challenged in court.

Dooley v Korean Airlines Co. (1998) - 9-0 ruling that the Death on the High Seas Act only allowed for wrongful death action and not for a ‘survival and pain and suffering’ action. Case related to the KAL 007 shoot-down in 1983.

US v Bestfoods (1998) -9-0 ruling that corporations may be held liable for the pollution caused by a subsidiary company. This interpreted the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v Yeskey (1998) - 9-0 ruling that state prisoners are covered by a federal disabilities law.

Friends of the Earth v Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000) - 7-2 ruling that a civil suit under the Clean Water Act doe not become moot when the defendant comes into compliance with the regulations.

Adarand v Slater (2000) - ruling that the Adarand case should be returned to the Court of Appeals because the policy against which Adarand brought a case has since been changed. The 10th Circuit Appeals Court will decide if the case has now become moot.

Shalala v Illinois Council on Long Term Care (2000) - 5-4 ruling that a Medicare provider that disputes the regulations put in place by the Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot use federal statutory jurisdiction and must use channels set up in Medicare statutes. A technical, statutory construction case.

Cortez Byrd Chips v Bill Harbert Construction Co. (2000) - 9-0 ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act allowed for a venue to be either where the arbitration award was made or under the general venue statute.

Christensen v Harris County (2000) - 5-4 ruling that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not prohibit a State or political subdivision from forcing employees to use up their compensatory time.

Harris Trust and Savings Bank v Salomon Smith Barney Inc. (2000) - 9-0 ruling on a technical part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regarding prohibited transactions by pension trust managers.

Pegram v Herdrich (2000) - 9-0 ruling that a decision by a hospital (health maintenance organisation) did not qualify as a claim through ERISA. The case regarded a delayed ultrasound and a ruptured appendix.

Sims v Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security (2000) - 5-4 ruling that claimants who exhaust administrative remedies need not exhaust issues for a judicial review to take place.

Troxel v Granville (2000) - 4-2-3 ruling that a Washington law that allowed anyone to petition for visitation rights at any time is too broad and thus unconstitutional. The case concerned paternal grandparents wishing to visit Granvilles children and Granville challenged a court giving them visitation rights.

Circuit City Stores Inc. v Adams (2001) - 5-4 ruling that exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act only applies to contracts of transportation workers, not all employment contracts.

Solid Waste of N Cook County v US Army Corps of Engineers (2001) - 5-4 ruling that the Clean Water Act does not extend regulatory coverage to wetlands not adjacent to navigable waters. The case involved a disputed permit application and the 'migratory bird rule' when considering such applications.

Central Green co v United States (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the meaning of 'flood waters' does not encompass all water that flows through a federal facility. CGO sued after water leaked from a canal and damaged their orchard.

Whitman v American Trucking Associations Inc (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the EPA may not consider the costs of implementation in setting national ambient air quality standards. The ATA challenged the reviewed standards under the Clean Air Act and the SC agreed.

New York Times Co Inc. v Tasini (2001) 7-2 ruling that that databases reproducing and distributing freelance articles are not exempt from the copyright protection for their authors as they are stored separate from their original published newspaper or magazine.

Palazzolo v Rhode Island (2001) 5-4 ruling that a takings claim is ripe when a public body denies development applications.

Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v Garris (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the negligent breach of a general maritime duty of care is actionable when it causes death.

US v Mead Corp. (2001) - 8-1 ruling that a ruling by the Customs Service over whether imported day-planners were bound diaries and therefore subject to a higher tariff. The Court said the Customs ruling, although not a law, should be respected.

TRW Inc v Andrews (2001) - 9-0 ruling that the two year limit on when to file a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act commences on the date liability arises rather than when the plaintiff finds the violations of the Act.

US Postal Service v Gregory (2001) -9-0 ruling that the Merit Systems Protection Board's practice of reviewing pending disciplinary actions to support a penalty's reasonableness under the Civil Service Reform Act is not contrary to law.

Chao v Mallard Bay Drilling Inc. (2002) 8-0 ruling (Scalia did not take part) that the Coast Guard had jurisdiction over an 'uninspected vessel' (a drilling rig that blew up) in terms of marine safety but this did not preempt the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration over safety regarding drilling.

Phillips v Washington Legal Foundation (1998) - 5-4 ruling that the interest on trust funds that lawyers hold for clients is the private property of the clients. This endangers state legal aid for the poor that channels and uses that interest.

National Credit Union Administration v First National Bank and Trust (1998) - 5-4 ruling that individual and federal credit unions cannot draw their members from a broad range of of occupations.

Oubre v Energy Operations (1998) - 6-3 ruling that older workers pressured to quit and sign a promise not to sue may still be able to bring a claim if the waivers fail to meet federal disclosure laws.

General Electric v Joiner (1998) - 9-0 ruling that trial judges should have great discretion to decide what type of scientific or expert testimony can be presented to juries.

US v US Shoe Corporation (1998) - 9-0 ruling that the federal harbour maintenance tax was an unconstitutional tax on exports, violating Article 1 Section 9 Clause 5 of the Constitution.

Pfaff v Wells Electronics Inc. (1998) - ruling that an inventor could not claim a patent after his invention had been on sale for more than a year.

US v Haggar Apparel Co. (1999) - ruling that the Court of Appeals had not applied the proper test to a case involving whether fabric treatment of clothing constituted a part of the assembly process and made import duties payable or not.