Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean Indian or native and American or tribe?

Your query indian or (native and american) or tribe returned 60 results.

	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y. [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion]
	WILLIAMS V. LEE [Opinion]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA [Dissent]
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE V. BRACKER [Opinion]
	C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS [Syllabus] Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. POTAWATOMI TRIBE, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE V. BRACKER [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE [Syllabus] Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
	IDAHO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River.
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION [Syllabus] Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Syllabus]
	WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE V. BRACKER [Syllabus]
	SOUTH FLA. WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. V.MICCOSUKEE TRIBE [Syllabus] Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Dissent]
	TALBOT V. JANSON [Syllabus]
	SCHNEIDER V. RUSK [Dissent]
	INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY [Syllabus] 1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. SAC & FOX NATION, 508 U.S. 114 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY [Syllabus] The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Opinion]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LARA [Syllabus] Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN. [Syllabus] Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
	SCHNEIDER V. RUSK [Opinion]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Dissent]
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Dissent]
	WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION [Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	BAKER V. CARR [Opinion]
	AFROYIM V. RUSK [Dissent]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	AFROYIM V. RUSK [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Concurrence]
	CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LIBELLANTS AND CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER AMISTAD [Opinion]
	TROP V. DULLES [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Dissent]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	BAKER V. CARR [Dissent]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	GIBBONS V. OGDEN [Opinion]
	HAGEN V. UTAH, 510 U.S. 399 (1994). [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion]
	[Syllabus]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Dissent]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Dissent]
	TROP V. DULLES [Dissent]
	NEVADA V. HICKS [Syllabus] A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS [Syllabus]
	BLATCHFORD V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF NOATAK, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) [Syllabus]
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N OF MD. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
	SAINT FRANCIS COLLEGE V. AL-KHAZRAJI [Opinion]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence]
	BUILDING TRADES & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY V. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN [Dissent]
	******** [Opinion]
	******** [Dissent]
	KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	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?
	AMBACH V. NORWICK [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. EICHMAN [Dissent]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	MEYER V. STATE OF NEBRASKA [Opinion]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Opinion]
	SCHNEIDER V. RUSK [Syllabus]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Opinion]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Opinion]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Dissent]
	BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	NEGONSOTT V. SAMUELS, 507 U.S. 99 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & FINANCE OF NEW YORK V. MILHELM ATTEA & BROS., 512 [Syllabus]
	EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP. [Syllabus]
	ROWLAND V. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). [Syllabus]
	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.
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	POWELL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	INS V. CHADHA [Concurrence]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Opinion]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concurrence]
	LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Opinion]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HEAD MONEY CASES [Opinion]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Opinion]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent]
	WASHINGTON V. DAVIS [Dissent]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Syllabus]
	CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO. [Dissent]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Opinion]
	FULLILOVE V. KLUTZNICK [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Dissent]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	TALBOT V. JANSON []
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Dissent]
	GRAHAM V. DEPARTMENT OF PUB. WELFARE [Opinion]
	BOOS V. BARRY [Concurrence]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Dissent]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	OSBORNE V. OHIO [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Dissent]
	CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES [Opinion]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Opinion]
	EX PARTE GARLAND [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	******** [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	C & L ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITIZEN BANDPOTAWATOMI TRIBE OF OKLA.SYLLABUS [Syllabus] Under the agreement respondent Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from petitioner contractor's state-court suit to enforce its arbitration award.
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. POTAWATOMI TRIBE, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION [Syllabus] Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
	ALASKA V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE [Syllabus] Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
	MONTANA V. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. CHICKASAW NATION, 515 U.S. 450 (1995). [Syllabus]
	OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. SAC & FOX NATION, 508 U.S. 114 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y. [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY [Syllabus] The Navajo Nation's imposition of a hotel occupancy tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation is invalid.
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE [Syllabus]
	KIOWA TRIBE OF OK V. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LARA [Syllabus] Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
	WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 117 S.CT. 2028, 138 L.ED.2D 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HAGEN V. UTAH, 510 U.S. 399 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River.
	DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN. [Syllabus] Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
	INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY [Syllabus] 1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
	DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & FINANCE OF NEW YORK V. MILHELM ATTEA & BROS., 512 [Syllabus]
	CASS COUNTY V. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 524 U.S. 103 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	NEGONSOTT V. SAMUELS, 507 U.S. 99 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BLATCHFORD V. NATIVE VILLAGE OF NOATAK, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWAINDIANS [Syllabus]
	NEVADA V. HICKS [Syllabus] A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
	SOUTH FLA. WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. V.MICCOSUKEE TRIBE [Syllabus] Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?
	ROWLAND V. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP. [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	CHICKASAW NATION V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act provision codified at 25 U. S. C. §2719(d)(i) does not exempt tribes from paying the gambling-related taxes imposed by chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code.
	RICE V. CAYETANO [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
	UNITED STATES V. OLSON [Syllabus]
	BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) [Syllabus]
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N OF MD. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [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?
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEZTSOSIE [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.