The Oyez Project: 1989 Term Decisions

Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett (No. 88-2035)

No details yet.

Alabama v. White (No. 89-789)

No details yet.

Astroline Communications v. Shurberg Broadcasting (No. 89-700)

No details yet.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co. (No. 88-1668)

No details yet.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (No. 88-1569)

Did Ohio's ban on the possession of child pornography violate the First Amendment?

The Court held that Ohio could constitutionally proscribe the possession of child pornography. The Court argued that the case at hand was distinct from Stanley v. Georgia, "because the interest underlying child pornography prohibitions far exceed the interests justifying the Georgia law at issue in Stanley." Ohio did not rely on "a paternalistic interest in regulating Osborne's mind;" rather, Ohio merely attempted to protect the victims of child pornography. The Court argued that regulations on production and distribution of child pornography were insufficient and could not dry up the market for pornographic materials. The Court also found that an error in jury instructions in the lower courts mandated Osborne be given a new trial.

Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight (No. 88-1182)

No details yet.

Begier v. IRS (No. 89-393)

No details yet.

Blystone v. Pennsylvania (No. 88-6222)

No details yet.

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (No. 88-1597)

No details yet.

Boyde v. California (No. 88-6613)

No details yet.

Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers (No. 88-124)

No details yet.

Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin (No. 89-44)

No details yet.

Butler v. McKellar (No. 88-6677)

No details yet.

Butterworth v. Smith (No. 88-1993)

No details yet.

California v. American Stores Co. (No. 89-258)

No details yet.

California v. FERC (No. 89-333)

No details yet.

Carden v. Arkoma Associates (No. 88-1476)

No details yet.

Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Schwalb (No. 87-1979)

No details yet.

Citibank, N.A. v. Wells Fargo Asia Ltd. (No. 88-1260)

No details yet.

Clemons v. Mississippi (No. 88-6873)

No details yet.

Collins v. Youngblood (No. 89-742)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (No. 88-1319)

No details yet.

Commissioner, INS v. Jean (No. 89-601)

No details yet.

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. (No. 89-275)

No details yet.

Crandon v. United States (No. 88-931)

No details yet.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health (No. 88-1503)

Does requiring a university to disclose confidential peer review materials in an investigation violate the First Amendment?

A unanimous Court held that the need to ferret out invidious discrimination served a compelling government interest which justified inspection of confidential files. Since the EEOC was not interested in forcing the University to accept specific standards for promotion and it did not attempt to control the content of speech on campus, Justice Blackmun dismissed Pennsylvania's argument that the EEOC's actions violated academic freedom.

Davis v. United States (No. 89-98)

No details yet.

Department of Labor v. Triplett (No. 88-1671)

No details yet.

Dole v. United Steel Workers of America (No. 88-1434)

No details yet.

Dowling v. United States (No. 88-6025)

No details yet.

Duro v. Reina (No. 88-6546)

No details yet.

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (No. 89-243)

No details yet.

Employment Division v. Smith (No. 88-1213)

No details yet.

English v. General Electric Co. (No. 89-152)

No details yet.

Ferens v. John Deere Co. (No. 88-1512)

No details yet.

Florida v. Wells (No. 88-1835)

Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

In a 5-to-4 decision, coming on the heels of a similar holding in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court struck down the law because "its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression." Allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made that clear, argued Justice Brennan in one of his final opinions.

Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA (No. 89-65)

No details yet.

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Alcan Aluminium (No. 88-1400)

No details yet.

FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn. (No. 88-1198)

No details yet.

FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas (No. 87-2012)

No details yet.

General Motors Corp. v. United States (No. 89-369)

No details yet.

Georgia v. South Carolina (No. 74 ORIG)

No details yet.

Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles (No. 88-840)

No details yet.

Grady v. Corbin (No. 89-474)

No details yet.

Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund (No. 88-1105)

No details yet.

Hallstrom v. Tillamook County (No. 88-42)

No details yet.

Hodgson v. Minnesota (No. 88-1125)

Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country?

No. The text of the Fourth Amendment concerns "the people," suggesting a concern with persons who are part of the national community, as contrasted with aliens without any substantial connection to the U.S. Moreover, extraterritorial aliens are not even entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment, which speaks in the relatively more universal term of "person." And non-"fundamental" rights are not even guaranteed to inhabitants of unincorporated territories under U.S sovereign control, much less aliens. Therefore, any restrictions on searches and seizures of nonresident aliens and their foreign property must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty or legislation.

Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. v. Sperling (No. 88-1203)

No details yet.

Holland v. Illinois (No. 88-5050)

No details yet.

Horton v. California (No. 88-7164)

No details yet.

Howlett v. Rose (No. 89-5383)

No details yet.

Hughey v. United States (No. 89-5691)

No details yet.

Idaho v. Wright (No. 89-260)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Perkins (No. 88-1972)

No details yet.

Illinois v. Rodriguez (No. 88-2018)

No details yet.

IRS v. FLRA (No. 88-2123)

No details yet.

James v. Illinois (No. 88-6075)

No details yet.

John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp. (No. 88-1083)

No details yet.

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (No. 88-1595)

No details yet.

Kansas v. Utilicorp United Inc. (No. 88-2109)

Does an organization representing private citizens who use public land "in the vicinity" of areas affected by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land-use designations have standing to challenge those designations under section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act? Does standing to challenge several individual BLM decision confer standing to challenge those decisions as a whole, even when the organization's members are not affected by the bulk of the decisions?

No and no. In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that NWF did not have standing to challenge the land-use designations. The two timely affidavits were not enough to show that the group members had actually been affected by the BLM decisions. Even if they had been, and if the four additional affidavits had been considered (which the Supreme Court ruled had not been necessary), the right to challenge the individual decisions would not have conveyed a right to challenge all of them. The decisions were not a single "agency action" but rather a series of actions which would have to be challenged individually. "The case-by-case approach that this requires is understandably frustrating to an organization such as [NWF], which has as its objective across-the-board protection of our Nation's wildlife and the streams and forests that support it," wrote Justice Scalia. "But this is the traditional, and remains the normal, mode of operation of the courts. ... Until confided to us, ... more sweeping actions are for the other branches."

Keller v. State Bar of California (No. 88-1905)

No details yet.

Kirkpatrick Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp. (No. 87-2066)

Did the Minnesota abortion notification statute unconstitutionally restrict a minor's access to having an abortion?

The Court found Section 2 of the statute unconstitutional because requiring notification of both parents, whether or not both wanted to know or had taken responsibility for raising the child, did not serve a legitimate state interest. The Court favored notification of only one parent and a 48 hour waiting period. The Court upheld Section 6 of the law.

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp. (No. 87-1955)

No details yet.

Lewis v. Jeffers (No. 89-189)

No details yet.

Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (No. 89-640)

No details yet.

Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc. (No. 88-334)

No details yet.

Maislin Industries, US, Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc. (No. 89-624)

No details yet.

Maryland v. Buie (No. 88-1369)

No details yet.

Maryland v. Craig (No. 89-478)

No details yet.

McKoy v. North Carolina (No. 88-5909)

No details yet.

Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (No. 89-453)

No details yet.

Michigan Citizens for Independent Press v. Thornburgh (No. 88-1640)

No details yet.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (No. 88-1897)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Harvey (No. 88-512)

No details yet.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (No. 89-645)

No details yet.

Minnesota v. Olson (No. 88-1916)

No details yet.

Missouri v. Jenkins (No. 88-1150)

Did California's imposition of a sales and use tax on the sale of religious materials violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment?

No. Basing its unanimous decision on the fact that California's sales and use tax was not a flat tax, affected only a small portion of retail sales, and was neutrally applied, the Court found the taxes constitutional. Moreover, since the taxes were not imposed as a precondition to spreading any given message and were due regardless of registration, the Court rejected Swaggart's claim that California's no-fee registration requirement acted as a prior restraint on his religious organization. Finally, the Court held that any administrative burdens associated with the payment of taxes did not give rise to an establishment conflict since they did not cause excessive entanglement between the government and Swaggart's organization.

New York v. Harris (No. 88-1000)

No details yet.

Ngiraingas v. Sanchez (No. 88-1281)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc. (No. 88-1685)

No details yet.

North Dakota v. United States (No. 88-926)

No details yet.

Northbrook National Ins. Co. v. Brewer (No. 88-995)

No details yet.

Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond (No. 88-1943)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (No. 88-805)

No details yet.

Osborne v. Ohio (No. 88-5986)

No details yet.

Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment (No. 88-791)

No details yet.

Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois (No. 88-1775)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania Public Welfare Dept. v. Davenport (No. 89-156)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Muniz (No. 89-213)

No details yet.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. The LTV Corp. (No. 89-390)

No details yet.

Perpich v. Department of Defense (No. 89-542)

No details yet.

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney (No. 89-386)

No details yet.

Portland Golf Club v. Commissioner (No. 89-530)

No details yet.

Preseault v. ICC (No. 88-1076)

No details yet.

Reves v. Ernst & Young (No. 88-1480)

No details yet.

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (No. 88-1872)

No details yet.

Saffle v. Parks (No. 88-1264)

Must a competitor alleging an "antitrust injury" under the Clayton Act prove predatory intent in addition to showing that the defendant conspired to fix prices in violation of the Sherman Act?

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that it was necessary to prove predatory intent in order for a competitor to establish a private cause of action under the Clayton Act. According to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.'s majority opinion, the standard for competitors is different than for affiliated dealers or consumers because competitors would only bring suit when the low prices that resulted from the price-fixing scheme hurt their business. As long as these prices are not predatory, however, they are actually good for consumers and increase competition. Allowing competitors to sue without showing predatory intent would therefore decrease competition, exactly the opposite of the intent of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

Sawyer v. Smith (No. 89-5809)

No details yet.

Selvage v. Collins (No. 87-6700)

No details yet.

Sisson v. Ruby (No. 88-2041)

No details yet.

Spallone v. United States (No. 88-854)

No details yet.

Steelworkers v. Rawson (No. 89-322)

No details yet.

Stewart v. Abend (No. 88-2102)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Everhart (No. 88-1323)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Finkelstein (No. 89-504)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Stroop (No. 89-535)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Zebley (No. 88-1377)

Did the undercover police officer violate the accused's Miranda rights as protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court held that conversations between suspects and undercover officers are not afforded Miranda protection since they are not done in a "police-dominated atmosphere" where compulsion to confess is present. "It is the premise of Miranda that the danger of coercion results from the interaction of custody and official interrogation," argued Justice Kennedy. There was no danger of coercion in this case.

Swaggart Ministries v. California Board of Equalization (No. 88-1374)

No details yet.

Tafflin v. Levitt (No. 88-1650)

No details yet.

Taylor v. United States (No. 88-7194)

No details yet.

Teamsters v. Terry (No. 88-1719)

No details yet.

Texaco, Inc. v. Hasbrouck (No. 87-2048)

No details yet.

United States v. Dalm (No. 88-1951)

No details yet.

United States v. Eichman (No. 89-1433)

No details yet.

United States v. Energy Resource Co. (No. 89-255)

No details yet.

United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (No. 88-1474)

Did the Boren Amendment create a "right" under the definition of 42 U.S.C. 1983, therefore allowing private parties to bring suit challenging the state's finding that its Medicaid reimbursement rates are "reasonable and adequate"? If such a right was created, did Congress intend to prevent private suits to enforce the it?

Yes and no. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Boren Amendment clearly established a right to reasonable and adequate reimbursement rates for the hospitals. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., writing for the majority, stated that a right exists if "the provision in question was intend[ed] to benefit the ... plaintiff." The requirement of reasonable rates was clearly intended to benefit the hospitals, so it amounted to a right under 1983. Without explicit language within the Amendment preventing private suits under 1983, or an alternative remedial scheme that would make such suits unnecessary, it was not reasonable to conclude that Congress had intended to prevent private suits to enforce the right it had created.

United States v. Kokinda (No. 88-2031)

No details yet.

United States v. Montalvo-Murillo (No. 89-163)

No details yet.

United States v. Munoz-Flores (No. 88-1932)

No details yet.

United States v. Ojeda Rios (No. 89-61)

No details yet.

United States v. Sperry Corp. (No. 88-952)

No details yet.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (No. 88-1353)

Did the drunk driving checkpoints violate motorists' privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment?

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight." The Court also found that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program.

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC (No. 88-493)

No details yet.

Venegas v. Mitchell (No. 88-1725)

No details yet.

Walton v. Arizona (No. 88-7351)

No details yet.

Washington v. Harper (No. 88-599)

No details yet.

White v. United States (No. 88-928)

No details yet.

Whitmore v. Arkansas (No. 88-7146)

No details yet.

Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assoc. (No. 88-2043)

No details yet.

Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly (No. 89-431)

No details yet.

Zinermon v. Burch (No. 87-1965)

No details yet.