The Oyez Project: 1988 Term Decisions

Alabama v. Smith (No. 88-333)

No details yet.

Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal v. Webster County (No. 87-1303)

No details yet.

Allegheny v. ACLU (No. 87-2050)

No details yet.

Amerada Hess Corp. v. N. J. Taxation Di (No. 87-453)

No details yet.

American Foreign Service Assn. v. Garfinkel (No. 87-2127)

No details yet.

American Trucking Associations v. Smith (No. 88-325)

No details yet.

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping (No. 87-1372)

Did the public displays violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the crèche inside the courthouse unmistakably endorsed Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. By prominently displaying the words "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ," the county sent a clear message that it supported and promoted Christian orthodoxy. The Court also held, however, that not all religious celebrations on government property violated the Establishment Clause. Six of the justices concluded that the display involving the menorah was constitutionally legitimate given its "particular physical setting."

Arizona v. Youngblood (No. 86-1904)

No details yet.

Asarco Inc. v. Kadish (No. 87-1661)

No details yet.

Barnard v. Thorstenn (No. 87-1939)

No details yet.

Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey (No. 87-981)

No details yet.

Blanchard v. Bergeron (No. 87-1485)

No details yet.

Blanton v. North Las Vegas (No. 87-1437)

No details yet.

Board Of Trustees, State Univ. Of N. Y. v. Fox (No. 87-2013)

No details yet.

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (No. 87-1346)

No details yet.

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital (No. 87-1097)

No details yet.

Brendale v. Confederated Yakima Indian Nation (No. 87-1622)

No details yet.

Brower v. Inyo County (No. 87-248)

No details yet.

Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal (No. 88-556)

No details yet.

California Equalization Bd. v. Sierra Summit (No. 88-681)

No details yet.

California v. Arc America Corp. (No. 87-1862)

(1) Does the Court's decision in Scheiner apply retroactively? (2) Even if the Scheiner decision does not apply retroactively, can the state keep taxes collected before the escrow account was established when those taxes are for the tax year July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988, a period after Scheiner?

No and no. A plurality of the Court held that Scheiner did not apply retroactively, and that state collection of taxes for the tax year beginning July 1, 1987, before the establishment of the escrow account, was unconstitutional. Applying the test of non-retroactivity articulated in Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971), the Court found that Scheiner clearly established a new principle of law; that the purpose of the Commerce Clause did not support retroactive application; and that equitable considerations weighed heavily against retroactivity. The Court went on to reverse the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision not to refund taxes already collected for the tax year beginning July 1, 1987, reasoning that the conduct to which Scheiner applied prospectively was the use of the highway, not the payment of money therefor. Justice Scalia concurred in the result, but disagreed with the plurality's retroactivity analysis. He found that the only reason to follow Scheiner, which he believed to be wrongly decided, was the doctrine of stare decisis, which only applies prospectively.

California v. United States (No. 87-1165)

No details yet.

Canton v. Harris (No. 86-1088)

No details yet.

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States (No. 87-1729)

No details yet.

Carella v. California (No. 87-6997)

No details yet.

Carlucci v. Doe (No. 87-751)

No details yet.

Castille v. Peoples (No. 87-1602)

No details yet.

Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd. (No. 87-1055)

No details yet.

Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fslic (No. 87-996)

No details yet.

Colonial Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner (No. 88-396)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Clark (No. 87-1168)

No details yet.

Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (No. 88-293)

No details yet.

Consol. Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives (No. 88-1)

No details yet.

Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico (No. 87-1327)

No details yet.

Dallas v. Stanglin (No. 87-1848)

No details yet.

Davis v. Michigan Dept. Of Treasury (No. 87-1020)

No details yet.

Dellmuth v. Muth (No. 87-1855)

Did the first warning and waiver negate the constitutional protections required by Miranda v. Arizona?

In a closely divided decision, the Court held that informing Eagan that an attorney would be appointed for him "if and when you go to court" did not render the Miranda warnings inadequate. The Court reasoned that officers did not have to use the specific language of the Miranda decision so long as they reasonably conveyed to suspects their constitutional rights. Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the instructions given to Eagan accurately described the procedure for the appointment of counsel in Indiana.

Department Of Justice v. Tax Analysts (No. 88-782)

No details yet.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County (No. 87-154)

Was Penry's sentence cruel and unusual punishment?

The Court partially affirmed and partially reversed the lower court's decision. Justice O'Connor argued that the jury was improperly instructed and should have been told that it could have considered Penry's mental deficiencies when imposing its sentence. However, she rejected Penry's blanket claim that generally the Eighth Amendment does not allow death sentences for retarded defendants.

Duckworth v. Eagan (No. 88-317)

No details yet.

Dugger v. Adams (No. 87-121)

No details yet.

Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch (No. 87-1160)

Did the search violate the Fourth Amendment?

The Court upheld the search and reasoned that the agents had a "reasonable suspicion that respondent was engaged in wrongdoing." Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the validity of such a stop should be based on the "totality of the circumstances," (United States v. Cortez, 1981), which, in this case, gave agents a clear reason to suspect Sokolow of drug trafficking.

Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm. (No. 87-1269)

No details yet.

Finley v. United States (No. 87-1973)

No details yet.

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch (No. 87-1054)

No details yet.

Flight Attendants v. Zipes (No. 88-608)

No details yet.

Florida v. Riley (No. 87-764)

No details yet.

Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana (No. 87-470)

No details yet.

Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc. (No. 87-1956)

No details yet.

Frazee v. Illinois Employment Security Dept. (No. 87-1945)

No details yet.

Fslic v. Ticktin (No. 87-1865)

No details yet.

Goldberg v. Sweet (No. 87-826)

No details yet.

Gomez v. United States (No. 88-5014)

No details yet.

Graham v. Connor (No. 87-6571)

No details yet.

Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg (No. 87-1716)

No details yet.

Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co. (No. 87-1816)

No details yet.

H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. (No. 87-1252)

No details yet.

Harbison-Walker Refractories, v. Brieck (No. 87-271)

No details yet.

Hardin v. Straub (No. 87-7023)

No details yet.

Harris v. Reed (No. 87-5677)

No details yet.

Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (No. 88-10)

No details yet.

Healy v. The Beer Institute (No. 88-449)

No details yet.

Hernandez v. Commissioner (No. 87-963)

No details yet.

Hoffman v. Connecticut Income Maint. Dept. (No. 88-412)

No details yet.

Jett v. Dallas Independent School Dist. (No. 87-2084)

No details yet.

Jones v. Thomas (No. 88-420)

No details yet.

Karahalios v. Federal Employees (No. 87-636)

No details yet.

Kentucky Dept. Of Corrections v. Thompson (No. 87-1815)

Does the New York ordinance substituting a city-employed technician and mixing board for a performer's mixer and equipment violate the First Amendment?

No. The Court upheld the ordinance, giving broad deference to the government's interest in maintaining order. As long as "the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest," a regulation will not be invalidated because a court concludes that the government's interest "could be adequately served by some less-speech-restrictive alternative."

Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser (No. 88-23)

No details yet.

Lockhart v. Nelson (No. 87-1277)

No details yet.

Lorance v. At&T Technologies, Inc. (No. 87-1428)

No details yet.

Maleng v. Cook (No. 88-357)

No details yet.

Mallard v. United States District Court (No. 87-1490)

No details yet.

Mansell v. Mansell (No. 87-201)

No details yet.

Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council (No. 87-1704)

No details yet.

Martin v. Wilks (No. 87-1614)

Did the Act violate the nondelegation doctrine of the Constitution?

The Court found the Act to be valid because although Congress cannot generally delegate its legislative power to another Branch, the nondelegation doctrine does not prevent Congress from obtaining assistance from coordinate Branches. The test of validity is that an "intelligible principle" must be established by the legislature where the agency of the delegated authority must adhere to specific directives that govern its authority. The delegation to the Commission was sufficiently detailed and specific to meet these requirements. The Commission was given substantial authority and discretion in setting the guidelines; however, Congress established a classification hierarchy for federal crimes that the Commission was to use as an outline for its work.

Massachusetts v. Morash (No. 88-32)

No details yet.

Massachusetts v. Oakes (No. 87-1651)

No details yet.

McKesson Corp. v. Florida Alcohol & Tobacco Division (No. 88-192)

No details yet.

Mcnamara v. County, San Diego Dept., Soc. Ser. (No. 87-5840)

No details yet.

Mead Corp. v. Tilley (No. 87-1868)

No details yet.

Mesa v. California (No. 87-1206)

No details yet.

Michael H. v. Gerald D. (No. 87-746)

No details yet.

Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States (No. 87-1905)

No details yet.

Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield (No. 87-980)

No details yet.

Missouri v. Jenkins (No. 88-64)

No details yet.

Mistretta v. United States (No. 87-7028)

No details yet.

Murray v. Giarratano (No. 88-411)

No details yet.

Nat. Treas. Employees Union v. Von Raab (No. 86-1879)

No details yet.

Ncaa v. Tarkanian (No. 87-1061)

No details yet.

Neitzke v. Williams (No. 87-1882)

No details yet.

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. New Orleans (No. 88-348)

No details yet.

New York City Bd. Of Estimate v. Morris (No. 87-1022)

No details yet.

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain (No. 88-774)

No details yet.

Northwest Cent. Pipeline v. Kan. Corp. Comm'n (No. 86-1856)

Did the regulations violate the Fourth Amendment?

No. The Court held that the "substantial interests" of the government in stifling the drug trade justified "departure from the ordinary warrant and probable cause requirements" associated with searches. The fact that customs personnel are the country's "first line of defense" against drug smugglers and they are exposed to a sometimes aggressive criminal element, places them in a unique and important position in which they have a "diminished expectation of privacy."

Ohio Pub. Employees Retirement System v. Betts (No. 88-389)

No details yet.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Graham (No. 88-266)

No details yet.

Oring v. State Bar Of California (No. 87-1224)

Did Wilks and other white firefighters have a constitutional right to challenge the previously established decrees?

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that because "a person cannot be deprived of his legal rights in a proceeding to which he is not a party," the white firefighters were not precluded from challenging employment decisions taken pursuant to the consent decrees. The Court argued that "[t]he parties to a lawsuit presumably know better than anyone else the nature and scope of relief sought in the action" and that they were better suited to intervene when their rights were immediately threatened. Conversely, the Court noted that "[n]o one can seriously contend that an employer might successfully defend against a Title VII claim by one group of employees on the ground that its actions were required by an earlier decree entered in a suit brought against it by another, if the later group did not have adequate notice or knowledge of the earlier suit."

Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney (No. 87-1201)

No details yet.

Owens v. Okure (No. 87-56)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. (No. 87-1241)

No details yet.

Penry v. Lynaugh (No. 87-6177)

No details yet.

Penson v. Ohio (No. 87-6116)

No details yet.

Perry v. Leeke (No. 87-6325)

No details yet.

Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co. v. Railway Executives (No. 87-1589)

No details yet.

Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben (No. 87-821)

No details yet.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (No. 87-1167)

No details yet.

Public Citizen v. Department Of Justice (No. 88-429)

No details yet.

Quinn v. Millsap (No. 88-1048)

No details yet.

Reed v. United Transportation Union (No. 87-1031)

No details yet.

Rhodes v. Stewart (No. 88-139)

No details yet.

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (No. 87-998)

No details yet.

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council (No. 87-1703)

No details yet.

Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp. (No. 88-385)

No details yet.

Sable Communications of California v. FCC (No. 88-515)

No details yet.

Schmuck v. United States (No. 87-6431)

No details yet.

Sheet Metal Workers v. Lynn (No. 86-1940)

No details yet.

Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dept. Of Revenue (No. 87-984)

No details yet.

Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co. (No. 87-2098)

No details yet.

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assoc. (No. 87-1555)

No details yet.

South Carolina v. Gathers (No. 88-305)

No details yet.

Stanford v. Kentucky (No. 87-5765)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Hudson (No. 88-616)

No details yet.

Teague v. Lane (No. 87-5259)

No details yet.

Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (No. 87-1245)

No details yet.

Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist. (No. 87-1759)

Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Texas v. Johnson (No. 88-155)

No details yet.

The Florida Star v. B. J. F. (No. 87-329)

No details yet.

Thornburgh v. Abbott (No. 87-1344)

No details yet.

Tompkins v. Texas (No. 87-6405)

No details yet.

Twa, Inc. v. Flight Attendants (No. 87-548)

No details yet.

U.S. Dept. Of Justice v. Reporters Committee (No. 87-1379)

No details yet.

United States v. Broce (No. 87-1190)

Where the penalty authorized under the False Claims Act is "entirely unrelated" to the damages actually suffered by the government, does imposition of the penalty amount to a "punishment" governed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment?

Yes. Justice Harry Blackmun, on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court, wrote that while previous cases had held penalties under the Act to be civil in nature, that did not foreclose the possibility of the penalty being so extreme and so unrelated to the actual damages as to constitute "punishment." Because Halper had already been jailed and fined, additional punishment in a separate proceeding would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court remanded the case to the District Court so that the government could challenge the original assessment of its attorney's fees.

United States v. Halper (No. 87-1383)

No details yet.

United States v. Monsanto (No. 88-454)

No details yet.

United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. (No. 87-1043)

No details yet.

United States v. Sokolow (No. 87-1295)

No details yet.

United States v. Stuart (No. 87-1064)

No details yet.

United States v. Zolin (No. 88-40)

No details yet.

Volt Info. Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U. (No. 87-1318)

No details yet.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism (No. 88-226)

No details yet.

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (No. 87-1387)

No details yet.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (No. 88-605)

No details yet.

Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police (No. 87-1207)

Does a state's failure to protect an individual against private violence constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

No. The Due Process Clause does not impose a special duty on the State to provide services to the public for protection against private actors if the State did not create those harms. "The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means."

Wyoming v. United States (No. 88-309)

No details yet.

Zant v. Moore (No. 87-1104)

No details yet.