Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean ?

Your query constitutional+or+unconstitutional returned 130 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG. [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ABRAMS V. JOHNSON, 117 S.CT. 1925, 138 L.ED.2D 285 (1997). [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. MARSH [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO [Syllabus] The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
	LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE V. LANE [Syllabus] Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	MCNARY V. HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. [Syllabus] The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD. [Syllabus]
	HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) [Syllabus]
	MCCARTHY V. BRONSON, 500 U.S. 136 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	KOWALSKI V. TESMER [Syllabus]
	HOPE V. PELZER [Syllabus] Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
	SHAW V. RENO, 113 S. CT. 2816, 113 S. CT. 2816, 125 L. ED. 2D 511 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. BLACK [Syllabus] Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even though the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?
	U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING CO. [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. FRENCH [Syllabus] The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). [Syllabus]
	COOK V. GRALIKE [Syllabus] 1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
	BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. ROBBINS [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS [Syllabus] Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF COMMERCE V. MONTANA, 503 U.S. 442 (1992). [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BRANCH V. SMITH [Syllabus] The Federal District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and fashioned its own plan under 2 U. S. C. §2c.
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. COLORADOREPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM. [Syllabus] Because a political party's expenditures coordinated with its candidates, unlike the party's truly independent expenditures, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's contribution limits, the Colorado Republican Party's facial challenge to the Acts limits on parties' coordinated expenditures is rejected.
	SABRI V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
	STENBERG V. CARHART [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
	DANIELS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Petitioner, having failed to pursue available remedies to challenge his prior convictions, may not now use a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion challenging his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions.
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring that Missouri's campaign contribution limits for statewide office, which exceed the limits expressly approved by this Court for national elections in Buckeley V. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), violates the First Amendment.
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SCHAD V. ARIZONA, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [Syllabus]
	GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
	ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS [Syllabus] Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
	NO. 96-1671 RAINES V. BYRD, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FORSYTH COUNTY, GA. V. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992). [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. V. SULLIVAN [Syllabus]
	LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. [Syllabus]
	HUNT V. CROMARTIE [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
	TAYLOR V. FREELAND & KRONZ, 503 U.S. 638 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WEST LYNN CREAMERY V. HEALY, 512 U.S. 186 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WASH. AIRPORTS AUTH. V. NOISE ABATEMENT CITIZENS, 501 U.S. 252 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. JONES, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER [Syllabus] Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
	FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON [Syllabus] A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
	LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). [Syllabus]
	LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
	LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
	JAMES M. BEAM DISTILLING CO. V. GEORGIA, 501 U.S. 529 (1991) [Syllabus]
	O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASH. [Syllabus] Interest earned on client funds deposited in IOLTA accounts that is transferred to a different owner for a legitimate public use may constitute a per se taking requiring "just compensation" to the client under the Fifth Amendment; but because such compensation is measured by the owner's pecuniary interest, which is zero whenever Washington's IOLTA law is obeyed, there is no violation of the Just Compensation Clause here.
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SELING V. YOUNG [Syllabus] In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute: Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment."
	RENNE V. GEARY, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HARPER V. VIRGINIA DEP'T OF TAXATION, 509 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	TUILAEPA V. CALIFORNIA, 512 U.S. 967 (1994). [Syllabus]
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GROH V. RAMIREZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?
	SULLIVAN V. LOUISIANA., 508 U.S. 275 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. TEXAS [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. RAICH [Syllabus]
	GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
	MCMILLIAN V. MONROE COUNTY, ALABAMA, 520 U.S. 781 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF MONT. V. KURTH RANCH, 511 U.S. 767 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. X-CITEMENT VIDEO, INC., 115 S. CT. 464, 130 L. ED. 2D 372 [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER [Syllabus] Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6)'s plain language unambiguously requires public housing lease terms that give local authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of that activity.
	REICH V. COLLINS, 115 S. CT. 547, 130 L. ED. 2D 454 (1994). [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. V. HYDE, 514 U.S. 749 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TYLER V. CAIN [Syllabus] The rule in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39-that a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood it to allow conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt-was not "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court," within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2244(b)(2)(A).
	RICHARDS ET AL. V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL., 517 U.S. 793 (1996). [Syllabus]
	DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD, 512 U.S. 687 (1994). [Syllabus]
	JINKS V. RICHLAND COUNTY [Syllabus] The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute includes a provision, 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), that tolls the period of limitations for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The question presented is whether the tolling provision invades state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause.