http://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/podcast U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_664/argument None Wed, 30 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56051 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_755/argument None Wed, 30 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56101 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_954/argument None Wed, 30 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56048 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5404/argument None Wed, 30 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56098 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_390/argument None Tue, 29 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55985 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_437/argument None Tue, 29 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56082 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_250/argument None Tue, 29 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56093 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_621/argument None Tue, 29 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56033 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1903/argument A Puerto Rican law restricted advertising by the island's casino gambling establishments. Even though gambling was a legal activity in Puerto Rico, the law only allowed advertising that was targeted at tourists. Mon, 28 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56074 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_619/argument None Mon, 28 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56009 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_521/argument None Mon, 28 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56020 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_599/argument None Mon, 28 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56102 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5238/argument None Wed, 23 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56007 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_554/argument None Wed, 23 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55958 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_1377/argument Due to rising government budget deficits during the first term of the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act of 1985. The act was designed to eliminate the federal budget deficit by restricting spending during fiscal years 1986 through 1991. Under the law, if maximum allowable deficit amounts were exceeded, automatic cuts, as requested by the Comptroller General, would go into effect. This case was decided together with O'Neill v. Synar and United States Senate v. Synar. Wed, 23 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56030 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_499/argument None Tue, 22 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55975 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_93/argument None Tue, 22 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56032 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_546/argument None Tue, 22 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56005 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5542/argument In 1974, a Florida court sentenced Alvin Bernard Ford to death for first- degree murder. At the time of the murder, trial, and sentencing phase, there was no indication that Ford was suffering from any mental deficiencies. While awaiting execution, Ford's mental condition worsened. His competency was assessed in accordance with Florida procedures. Following this assessment, Florida's Governor signed Ford's death warrant. A state court declined to hear arguments raised about Ford's competency. Without the benefit of a hearing, Ford's habeas corpus petition was then denied by the a federal district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Tue, 22 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56045 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_568/argument None Mon, 21 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55971 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_434/argument None Mon, 21 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56002 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_588/argument None Mon, 21 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55999 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_632/argument None Mon, 21 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56031 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_117/argument None Wed, 02 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56088 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_227/argument None Wed, 02 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56049 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_410/argument None Wed, 02 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56103 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_519/argument None Wed, 02 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56037 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_198/argument None Tue, 01 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55979 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_385/argument None Tue, 01 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55987 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1744/argument None Tue, 01 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55981 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_162/argument None Tue, 01 Apr 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55974 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5189/argument In the morning of July 26, 1984, Lamont McLaughlin and a companion, both wearing stocking masks, entered a bank in Baltimore. McLaughlin displayed a handgun and ordered everyone in the bank to put his hands up and not to move. While McLaughlin remained in the lobby area holding the gun, his companion placed about $3,400 in a brown paper bag. A police officer apprehended the two as they left the bank. The police then found that McLaughlin's gun was not loaded. Ultimately, McLaughlin pleaded guilty to charges of bank robbery and bank larceny and was found guilty of assault during a bank robbery "by the use of a dangerous weapon." The Court of Appeals affirmed. Mon, 31 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56014 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_224/argument In 1975, eight Chicano individuals were attending a party that was broken up by the Riverside police using tear gas and physical force without a warrant. Subsequently, the eight individuals filed suit in Federal District Court against the city and various police officers under several federal Civil Rights Acts, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The jury found in the individuals' favor and awarded $33,350 in compensatory and punitive damages. The individuals also sought attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 in the amount of $245,456.25, based on 1,946.75 hours expended by their two attorneys at $125 per hour and 84.5 hours expended by law clerks at $25 per hour. Finding both the hours and rates reasonable, the District Court awarded the requested amount, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found that the fee award was not excessive merely because it exceeded the amount of damages awarded by the jury. Mon, 31 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56097 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_140/argument Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, Hardwick challenged the statute's constitutionality in Federal District Court. Following a ruling that Hardwick failed to state a claim, the court dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional. Georgia's Attorney General, Michael J. Bowers, appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari. Mon, 31 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55962 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_902/argument None Mon, 31 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56066 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_488/argument None Wed, 26 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56067 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_289/argument None Wed, 26 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56075 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1904/argument None Wed, 26 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55972 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_2015/argument None Wed, 26 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55959 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1979/argument After being dismissed from her job at a Meritor Savings Bank, Mechelle Vinson sued Sidney Taylor, the Vice President of the bank. Vinson charged that she had constantly been subjected to sexual harassment by Taylor over her four years at the bank. She argued such harassment created a "hostile working environment" and was covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Vinson sought injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages against Taylor and the bank. Tue, 25 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56035 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1809/argument None Tue, 25 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56046 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_246/argument None Tue, 25 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55983 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1777/argument None Tue, 25 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55966 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_62/argument In order to protect its fisheries from parasites and non-native species, the state of Maine prohibited the importation of live baitfish. Robert J. Taylor, the owner of a bait business, violated the law and was prosecuted by Maine authorities. Mon, 24 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55957 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1973/argument None Mon, 24 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55990 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1974/argument None Mon, 24 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56022 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1948/argument None Mon, 24 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55994 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1717/argument None Wed, 05 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56003 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1944/argument None Wed, 05 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56100 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_88/argument None Wed, 05 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56047 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1661/argument None Wed, 05 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56108 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_215/argument None Tue, 04 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56057 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1972/argument Orion Manufacturing Corporation (Orion) was a customer of Philadelphia Gear Corporation (PG). To provide a guarantee of payment to PG, Orion obtained a letter of credit for the benefit of PG from Penn Square Bank, N.A. (Bank). If Orion failed to pay an invoice to PG for at least 15 days, PG could draw upon that line of credit, up to $145,200. This type of credit line, meant to guarantee payment to a seller, is referred to as a standby letter of credit. To back up that line of credit, Orion executed an unsecured promissory note in favor of the Bank. This note is referred to as a backup letter of credit. Nothing was due on the backup letter of credit unless PG presented drafts on the standby letter of credit. Thus the backup letter was a contingent promissory note. The Bank did not credit any account of Orion's in exchange for the note, and did not treat its own assets as increased by its acceptance of the note. In 1982, the Bank was declared insolvent and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed its receiver. PG presented drafts on the standby letter of credit for goods delivered before the Bank's insolvency, but the FDIC returned them unpaid. PG sued the FDIC, claiming that the standby letter of credit was an insured deposit under the definition of "deposit" set forth at 12 U.S.C. Section 1813(l)(1), and that PG was therefore entitled to $100,000 in deposit insurance. Tue, 04 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56086 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5487/argument None Tue, 04 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56016 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_363/argument Investigator David Groblewski from the Erie County District Attorney's Office viewed videos rented from P.J. Video and determined their content violated New York obscenity statutes. He drafted an affidavit describing the content on the videos and filed a warrant authorizing their seizure. A village justice in Depew NY issued the warrant and the police seized ten movies suspected to contain obscene content. A local court determined five of the movies violated obscenity standards. P.J. Video argued that the justice issued the warrant without probable cause since he did not personally view the movies. The court agreed and suppressed the videos as evidence. The County Court of Erie County affirmed the decision, and the New York Court of Appeals also affirmed. It asserted that warrants authorizing the seizure of items that were both non- dangerous and mediums of speech needed to satisfy a higher level of proof of "probable-cause" than other types of warrants because of First Amendment concerns. Tue, 04 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56027 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_21/argument None Mon, 03 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56099 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_2030/argument None Mon, 03 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56060 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5_2/reargument None Mon, 03 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 admin 62318 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667/argument At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days. Mon, 03 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56008 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5/argument None Mon, 03 Mar 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56013 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1560/argument None Wed, 26 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56028 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1905/argument None Wed, 26 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56021 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1923/argument None Wed, 26 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56107 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1839/argument None Wed, 26 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56059 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_217/argument None Tue, 25 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55964 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_195/argument None Tue, 25 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55997 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1999/argument None Tue, 25 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56090 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1656/argument In 1975, a federal district court found the Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers Union guilty of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court established a 29 percent minority membership goal and ordered the union to implement procedures to meet the goal. In 1982 and 1983, the union was found guilty of civil contempt for disobeying the court orders. The court then established a 29.23 percent nonwhite membership goal to be met by August 1987. Tue, 25 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56076 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5023/argument None Mon, 24 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56085 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6859/argument None Mon, 24 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56000 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_202/argument None Mon, 24 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56004 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_54/argument None Mon, 24 Feb 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56012 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1728/argument None Wed, 22 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56039 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1279/argument None Wed, 22 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56044 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_225/argument None Wed, 22 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55973 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1913/argument None Wed, 22 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55991 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1726/argument Transamerica Delaval Inc. designed and manufactured propulsion systems for four supertankers. The propulsion systems eventually failed due to design and manufacturing flaws. Only the propulsion systems themselves were damaged - no other part of the ship was damaged, and no one was injured. East River Steamship and the other companies that had purchased the supertankers sued Transamerica under the negligence and products-liability doctrines of tort law, a branch of law that deals with injuries not covered by contractual agreements. They sought compensation for the cost of repairing the ships as well as for the income they lost while the ships were out of service. The district court, however, granted summary judgment to Transamerica. It held that the injuries were not covered by tort law because only the propulsion systems themselves had been injured, and that the case therefore dealt with the product's warranty rather than tort law. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case en banc and affirmed the district court's decision. Tue, 21 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56064 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1554/argument Clifford Carrier was arrested on charges of rape and abduction in 1977. Before his trial, Carrier's attorney filed a motion asking the court to give him access to the victim's statements about her assailants, their vehicle, and the location of the rape. The court rejected the motion. Carrier was subsequently convicted, and his attorney filed an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. The appeal did not mention the trial judge's decision about the victim's statements. That appeal was rejected. A year later, Carrier filed a new appeal in state court claiming that he had been denied his 14th Amendment right to Due Process by the trial judge's refusal to grant him access to the victim's statements. The court dismissed his case, however, citing Virginia Supreme Court Rule 5:21, which states that claims left out of an initial appeal cannot be raised in later appeals. Because Carrier's attorney had not mentioned the victim's statements in the first appeal, Carrier could not raise them in the second. Carrier then filed a similar appeal in federal district court, again citing the 14th Amendment Due Process claims. The state argued that the appeal was procedural barred because it dealt with issues not raised during the initial appeal. Carrier countered that the omission of the claim had been his attorney's mistake (rather than a tactical decision), and that it should therefore not be held against him. The federal district court rejected the argument, dismissing the case. A divided Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed the decision, finding that the omission had been the attorney's mistake and therefore represented a failure of the attorney to provide effective counsel in that particular part of the case (though the representation as a whole was not unconstitutionally poor). The panel stated that because the omission resulted from ineffective counsel, it should not be held against Carrier. Tue, 21 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56011 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1725/argument In 1979, the Southwestern Power Administration, a federal regulatory body acting on behalf of the Secretary of Energy, increased the cost of electricity generated by federally owned dams under its control. The price hike was initially implemented on an interim basis, and three years later, after furher review, the new rates were made permanent. A group of cities that purchased power from the dams filed suit to recover the extra fees it had paid before the interim rates were made final, claiming that Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 prohibited the imposition of interim fees. The Act stated that new rates would "become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Secretary (of Energy)." The cities asserted that the rates, while in their interim phase, had not yet received "confirmation and approval" from the Secretary and could therefore not be legally implemented. The Court of Claims sided with the cities, holding that the new rates could only be charged once they received final approval from the Secretary. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. Tue, 21 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55976 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1737/argument The American College of Physicians, a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, published a monthly medical journal. Within the journal were paid advertisements for products useful in the field of medicine specifically covered by the journal. Section 511(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on "unrelated business taxable income" of tax-exempt organizations. The IRS asserted that the advertising income from the medical journal fell under this category. The American College of Physicians countered that the advertisements were "substantially related" to its tax-exempt purpose of maintaining high standards in medicine, and that they were therefore tax- exempt. When the IRS refused to give the organization a tax refund, it filed suit in United States Claims Court. The Claims Court held that the advertisements were not substantially related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose and that the income was therefore taxable. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, ruling that the advertisements helped to educate the journal's readers and was therefore substantially related. Tue, 21 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55980 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1686/argument None Wed, 15 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55992 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1922/argument None Wed, 15 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56056 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1529/argument None Wed, 15 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56025 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1803/argument None Wed, 15 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56001 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1606/argument None Tue, 14 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56024 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1097/argument Goldman was a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force, an Orthodox Jew, and an ordained rabbi. He was not allowed to wear his yarmulke while on duty and in Air Force uniform. An Air Force regulation mandated that indoors, headgear could not be worn "except by armed security police in the performance of their duties." Tue, 14 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56081 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_780/argument None Tue, 14 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55995 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1479/argument None Tue, 14 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56063 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_871/argument None Mon, 13 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55989 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5319/argument None Mon, 13 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55965 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1865/argument During the capital trial of Ardia McCree, a judge removed prospective jurors who stated that under no circumstances would they be able to impose the death penalty. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the judge's actions violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. A.L. Lockhart, the director of the Arkansas Department of Correction, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. Mon, 13 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 55998 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1362/argument None Mon, 13 Jan 1986 13:00:00 +0000 56105 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6263/argument Batson, a black man, was on trial charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike the four black persons on the venire, resulting in a jury composed of all whites. Batson was convicted on both of the charges against him. Thu, 12 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55996 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6646/argument None Thu, 12 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56096 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_35_orig/argument None Thu, 12 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55993 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_782/argument None Thu, 12 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56065 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1513/argument The Santa Clara Police received an anonymous tip that Ciraolo was growing marijuana in his back yard. Unable to observe the yard from the ground due to a high fence which encircled it, the police secured a private plane and flew over Ciraolo's house at an altitude of 1,000 feet. The fly-over confirmed the presence of marijuana. The police then obtained a search warrant, seized 73 plants on the next day, and arrested Ciraolo who then pleaded guilty to the cultivation of marijuana. The California Court of Appeals, however, found that the aerial observation was illegal and reversed Ciraolo's conviction. Tue, 10 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56018 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1198/argument None Tue, 10 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56104 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1259/argument Dow Chemical Company denied the Environmental Protection Agency a follow-up on-site inspection of its facilities in Midland, Michigan. In response, EPA conducted an unannounced aerial inspection. When Dow became aware EPA had taken aerial photographs of its facilities, it filed suit in District Court alleging that EPA conducted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court ruled that the aerial inspection violated Dow's "expectation of privacy" from searches. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the ruling on the ground that Dow only expected pivacy with respect to its indoor property. Tue, 10 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56023 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1077/argument None Tue, 10 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56084 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1531/argument None Mon, 09 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55982 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6807/argument None Mon, 09 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56006 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1484/argument None Mon, 09 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55967 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_978/argument None Mon, 09 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56095 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1601/argument None Wed, 04 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56042 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_83_1968/argument The North Carolina General Assembly passed a redistricting plan for the state's Senate and House of Representatives. Black citizens of North Carolina alleged that the plan created seven new districts where blacks would not be able to elect representatives of their choosing. They filed suit in a District Court claiming that this violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Before the District Court could hear the case, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in order to clarify that voting violations needed only to have a "discriminatory effect" and required no "discriminatory purpose." Considering the "totality of circumstances" of the redistricting plan, the District Court ruled that six of the new districts violated the newly amended Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of the black vote. The North Carolina Attorney General appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court. Wed, 04 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56015 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1493/argument None Wed, 04 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56109 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1644/argument None Wed, 04 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56038 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1491/argument In a series of articles, the Philadelphia Inquirer accused Hepps of links to organized crime and of capitalizing on that connection to influence the state legislature. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court favored Hepps and held that the newspaper was obligated to prove its accusations true. Tue, 03 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55961 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1602/argument Liberty Lobby, Inc. (Liberty), a nonprofit "citizen's lobby" corporation, filed a libel action against a magazine published by Jack Anderson et al. Liberty claimed that one of Anderson's articles contained false and derogatory statements about its operations. In its defense, Anderson claimed that as a pubic entity Liberty must show with "convincing clarity" that Anderson acted with actual malice - something they could not do since the article's author stated in an affidavit that he thoroughly researched and cross-checked all his information. Liberty claimed that Anderson did act with actual malice since its author depended on patently unreliable sources. Following a district court's summary judgment ruling favoring Anderson, an appellate court reversed as it held that the lower court erroneously applied actual malice standards of proof at the summary judgement phase. Anderson appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Tue, 03 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55986 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1616/argument None Tue, 03 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56072 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1580/argument None Tue, 03 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56058 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1160/argument None Mon, 02 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56068 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1640/argument None Mon, 02 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56026 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1503/argument None Mon, 02 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56019 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1555/argument None Mon, 02 Dec 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56055 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1288/argument None Wed, 13 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55960 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1586/argument None Wed, 13 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56054 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1485/argument None Wed, 13 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56087 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1480/argument None Wed, 13 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55977 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_83_2004/argument None Tue, 12 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56106 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1538/argument None Tue, 12 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56089 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1361/argument None Tue, 12 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56083 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1360/argument The city of Renton, Washington, enacted a zoning ordinance that prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating with in 1,000 feet of "any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school." Playtime Theatres, Inc., challenged the ordinance and sought a permanent injunction against its enforcement. Tue, 12 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56094 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6470/argument None Wed, 06 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56092 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1070/argument None Wed, 06 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55968 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_5872/argument None Wed, 06 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56079 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1340/argument Under the collective bargaining agreement between the Jackson Board of Education (Board) and a teachers' union, teachers with the most seniority would not be laid off. It was also agreed not to lay off a percentage of minority personnel that exceeded the percentage of minority personnel employed at the time of a layoff. When the schools laid off some nonminority teachers, while retaining other minority teachers with less seniority, Wendy Wygant, a displaced nonminority teacher, challenged the layoff in district court. Holding that the Board could grant racial preferences without grounding them on prior discrimination findings and that the preferences did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, since they remedied discrimination by providing "role models" for minority students, the District Court upheld the layoff provision's constitutionality. When the appeals court affirmed, the Supreme Court granted Wygant certiorari. Wed, 06 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56091 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_495/argument In 1982, the state of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortion. The law required the following: "informed consent" of the woman, the dissemination of information concerning the risks of abortion, reporting procedures, the use of certain medical techniques after viability, and the presence of a second physician for post-viability abortions. The initial suit was brought against Richard Thornburgh, the Governor of Pennsylvania. Tue, 05 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56017 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1379/argument None Tue, 05 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55978 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1321/argument None Tue, 05 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56071 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1236/argument None Tue, 05 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56043 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1636/argument None Mon, 04 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56050 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1274/argument None Mon, 04 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56062 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1144/argument None Mon, 04 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55984 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1181/argument None Mon, 04 Nov 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56052 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_801/argument None Wed, 16 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56036 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_5786/argument None Wed, 16 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56040 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_732/argument None Wed, 16 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56041 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_701/argument None Wed, 16 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56070 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1240/argument None Tue, 15 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56010 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_773/argument None Tue, 15 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55969 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_836/argument None Tue, 15 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56080 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_489/argument None Tue, 15 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55988 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1023/argument None Wed, 09 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56078 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_5555/argument None Wed, 09 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55970 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_744/argument None Wed, 09 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55963 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1076/argument None Tue, 08 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56053 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_786/argument None Tue, 08 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56029 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1044/argument None Tue, 08 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56069 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1273/argument None Tue, 08 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56077 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_5630/argument None Mon, 07 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56061 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1103/argument None Mon, 07 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56073 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1244/argument A group of Democrats challenged Indiana's 1981 state apportionment scheme on the ground of political gerrymandering. The Democrats argued that the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights. A three-judge District Court sustained the Democrats' challenge. Mon, 07 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 56034 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_6270/argument None Mon, 07 Oct 1985 13:00:00 +0000 55956 at http://www.oyez.org