http://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/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/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_1433/argument In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed." The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.Both cases (Eichman's and Haggerty's) were argued together. Mon, 14 May 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57134 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_5809/argument None Wed, 25 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57135 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_152/argument None Wed, 25 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57084 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_504/argument None Tue, 24 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57094 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_645/argument None Tue, 24 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57211 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_601/argument None Mon, 23 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57106 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2041/argument None Mon, 23 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57163 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_260/argument None Wed, 18 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57210 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_478/argument Sandra Ann Craig, the operator of a kindergarten and pre-school facility, was accused of sexually abusing a six-year-old child. Over Craig's objections, a trial court allowed the alleged child victim to testify via one-way closed circuit television. The child testified outside the courtroom while Mrs. Craig, through electronic communication with her lawyer, could make objections. The judge and jury also viewed the testimony in the courtroom. This was done in order to avoid the possibility of serious emotional distress for the child witness. The trial court convicted Craig, but the Maryland high court reversed. Wed, 18 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57235 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_789/argument None Tue, 17 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57219 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_530/argument None Tue, 17 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57178 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_624/argument None Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57083 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_640/argument The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) challenged 1,250 land-use designations made by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). NWF filed suit under section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming that the actions were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." NWF argued that it had standing to sue because two of its members used public lands "in the vicinity" of lands affected by the BLM's decisions (four other members submitted affidavits claiming that they, too, used lands close to affected areas, but the District Court ruled that the affidavits had been submitted too late). The BLM challenged the NWF's right to sue, and the District Court agreed. It found that the two affidavits filed in a timely manner did not show that the members had been sufficiently affected to have standing to sue. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if they had had standing to challenge those specific BLM decisions, they would not have had standing to challenge all 1,250. On appeal, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the initial two affidavits were enough to give them standing to challenge all 1,250 decisions. Moreover, the Court ruled that the District Court had abused its discretion by refusing to consider the additional four affidavits. Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57112 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2109/argument None Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57072 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_453/argument This case challenged the constitutionality of two minority preference policies of the Federal Communications Commission. Under the first policy challenged by Metro Broadcasting, Inc., minority applicants for broadcast licenses were given preference if all other relevant factors were roughly equal. The second policy, known as the "distress sale," was challenged by Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford Inc. This policy allowed broadcasters in danger of losing their licenses to sell their stations to minority buyers before the FCC formally ruled on the viability of the troubled stations. This case was decided together with Astroline Communications Co. v. Shurberg Broadcasting, in which Faith Center Inc. made a "distress sale" of its television license to a minority outfit owned by Astroline. Shurberg, a non-minority applicant for a similar license, challenged the FCC's approval of Faith Center's sale to Astroline. Wed, 28 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57109 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_700/argument In an effort to comply by its duty to promote programming diversity, under the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted two minority preference policies. The first policy awarded preferences to minority ownership bids for licenses for new radio or television broadcasting stations. The second policy allowed radio or television broadcasters with questionable license qualifications, to avoid an FCC investigation of their actions by making a "distress sale" of their licenses to a legitimate minority outfit. Upon FCC approval, Faith Center Inc. "distress sold" its television license to Astroline's minority-owned outfit. Shurberg, a nonminority applicant for a similar license, sought appellate review of Astroline's award. The appellate court agreed, and invalidated the distress sale policy as unconstitutional. Astroline appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Wed, 28 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57222 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_393/argument None Tue, 27 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57144 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_542/argument None Tue, 27 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57208 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_5691/argument None Tue, 27 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57091 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_98/argument None Mon, 26 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57166 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_535/argument None Mon, 26 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57231 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_322/argument None Mon, 26 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57168 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_474/argument None Wed, 21 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57217 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_369/argument None Wed, 21 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57137 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2018/argument None Tue, 20 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57120 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_333/argument None Tue, 20 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57152 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_5383/argument None Tue, 20 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57157 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_255/argument None Mon, 19 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57088 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1260/argument None Mon, 19 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57242 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_742/argument None Mon, 19 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57123 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_44/argument None Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57170 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_7194/argument None Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57253 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_61/argument None Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57227 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_431/argument None Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57077 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1905/argument None Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57098 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1897/argument In 1986, the Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation. Before the first roadblock went into effect, Rick Sitz, a licensed Michigan driver, challenged the checkpoints and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Sitz was victorious in the Michigan lower courts. Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57140 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_390/argument None Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57167 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_213/argument None Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57245 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_243/argument None Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57233 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2031/argument Marsha Kokinda and Kevin Pearl were volunteers for the National Democratic Policy Committee. They set up a table on a sidewalk near a post office to solicit contributions and sell political literature. After post office employees received a large number of complaints, Kokinda and Pearl were asked to leave. They refused, at which point postal inspectors arrested them. They were charged and convicted of violating 39 CFR 232.1(h)(1)(1989), which prohibits "soliciting alms and contributions ... on postal premises." They appealed the convictions, arguing that they violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. The District Court, ruling that the sidewalk in question (which was entirely on Postal Service property and was intended only for traffic to and from the Post Office) was not a public forum, found that the restrictions were reasonable and therefore did not violate the First Amendment. On appeal, however, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the sidewalk was a traditional public forum and that the government's regulations were therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Because the government had no significant interest in banning solicitation, the convictions were unconstitutional. Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57136 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_386/argument None Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57080 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1916/argument None Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57220 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1725/argument None Wed, 21 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57197 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1943/argument None Wed, 21 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57205 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_7164/argument None Wed, 21 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57162 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_189/argument None Wed, 21 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57185 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1932/argument None Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57186 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1972/argument While being held in jail, Perkins freely confessed to committing a murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as another inmate. Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57236 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_275/argument None Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57177 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_156/argument None Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57097 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_7351/argument None Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57232 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_6700/argument None Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57110 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1775/argument None Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57230 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2035/argument None Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57075 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_258/argument None Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57187 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1671/argument None Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57099 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1872/argument In November 1980, Governor James Thompson of Illinois issued an order that prohibited state officials from hiring new employees, promoting state employees, or recalling state employees after layoffs without the approval of the Governor's Office of Personnel. The Office of Personnel based hiring and promotion decisions on factors such as the applicant's contributions to the Republican Party, the applicant's record of service to the Republican Party, and the support of local Party officials. In the jointly decided case of Frech v. Rutan, Cynthia B. Rutan and a number of other potential and current state employees challenged this patronage system, alleging that the Governor was violating their First Amendment rights by practicing unfair political patronage and party-based discrimination. Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57237 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1993/argument None Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57081 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_65/argument None Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57105 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1000/argument None Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57259 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1951/argument None Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57193 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_7146/argument None Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57095 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2043/argument To qualify for federal funding under the Medicaid Act, states must submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a plan that establishes a system by which healthcare providers will be reimbursed. Under the Boren Amendment, the reimbursement rates must be "reasonable and adequate" to meet the costs of efficiently operated facilities. In 1986, a group of hospitals brought sought against the state of Virginia, arguing that its reimbursement rates (which had been approved in 1982 and again in 1986 by the Secretary) were not "reasonable and adequate." The suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows individuals or organizations to bring suit for the "deprivation of any rights ... secured by [federal] laws." Virginia argued that the Boren Amendment had not been intended to create a an enforceable right, but simply to provide guidelines for the Secretary to follow, and that the hospitals therefore could not bring suit under 1983. The state also argued that Congress had intended to prevent private parties from bringing suit to enforce the provisions of the Amendment. The District Court disagreed, allowing the suit to proceed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57229 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1597/argument The school administration at Westside High School denied permission to a group of students to form a Christian club with the same privileges and meeting terms as other Westside after-school student clubs. In addition to citing the Establishment Clause, Westside refused the club's formation because it lacked a faculty sponsor. When the school board upheld the administration's denial, Mergens and several other students sued. The students alleged that Westside's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages. On appeal from an adverse District Court ruling, the Court of Appeals found in favor of the students. The Supreme Court granted Westside certiorari. Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57074 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2102/argument None Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57183 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_163/argument None Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57124 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_74_orig/argument None Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57154 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2123/argument None Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57079 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1281/argument None Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57195 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_334/argument None Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000 57107 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1719/argument None Wed, 06 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57175 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1503/argument In 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." She was sustained for several weeks by artificial feedings through an implanted gastronomy tube. When Cruzan's parents attempted to terminate the life-support system, state hospital officials refused to do so without court approval. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's policy over Cruzan's right to refuse treatment. Wed, 06 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57085 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1668/argument Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) is an integrated oil company that sells gasoline to consumers through its own retail stations as well as independent ARCO-brand stations. USA Petroleum (USA), a competitor of ARCO, is an independent retail marketer that purchases gasoline from major petroleum companies and resells it under its own brand name. USA sued ARCO under the Clayton Act in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that ARCO had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring with the independent ARCO-brand stations to sell gasoline at below-market prices (the Clayton Act allows private parties to bring suit when they have been harmed by anticompetitive practices that violate the Sherman Act). The District Court ruled for ARCO, finding that even if USA could prove the conspiracy, it would not be an "antitrust injury" to USA under the Clayton Act unless it could also prove that the pricing was predatory (that is, that it was intended to drive USA and other competitors out of business). It would be impossible to prove this, the District Court concluded, because ARCO was not dominant enough in the market to exert that sort of power. A divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that it was not necessary to show predatory intent to prove an "antitrust inquiry." All that was necessary was a showing that the party bringing the suit had been harmed by price fixing carried out by the party being sued. Tue, 05 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57240 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_5986/argument After obtaining a warrant, Ohio police searched the home of Clyde Osborne and found explicit pictures of naked, sexually aroused male adolescents. Osborne was then prosecuted and found guilty of violating an Ohio law that made the possession of child pornography illegal. Tue, 05 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57086 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_2048/argument None Tue, 05 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57252 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1369/argument None Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57164 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1595/argument None Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57118 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1685/argument None Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57142 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1835/argument None Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57179 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_6546/argument None Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57127 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_805/argument None Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57188 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1105/argument None Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57101 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1125/argument Under Section 2 of a Minnesota statute regulating a minor's access to abortion, women under 18 were denied access to the procedure until 48 hours after both their parents had been notified. Exceptions were made in the cases of medical emergencies and women who were victims of parental abuse. Section 6 of the law allowed the courts to judicially bypass Section 2 if the young woman could maturely demonstrate that notification would be unwise. Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57209 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_6613/argument None Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57073 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1377/argument None Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57201 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_1955/argument None Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57141 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_6873/argument None Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57158 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_2066/argument None Mon, 27 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57181 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1323/argument None Mon, 27 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57250 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1650/argument None Mon, 27 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57212 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1480/argument None Mon, 27 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57189 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_493/argument Rosalie Tung was an Asian-American professor who believed that she was denied tenure because of her sex and her race. To investigate her claim, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked the University for access to Tung's confidential peer review file. Citing the protection of academic freedom, the University refused to cooperate so as to avoid breaching the confidentiality promised to reviewers. Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57092 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1353/argument Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. In cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Mexican police officers apprehended and transported him to the U.S. border, where he was arrested for various narcotics-related offenses. Following his arrest, a DEA agent sought authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence. The Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police authorized the searches, but no search warrant from a U.S. magistrate was ever received. At trial, the district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57138 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1182/argument None Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57155 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1476/argument None Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57145 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_931/argument None Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57214 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213/argument Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct." The counselors lost their battle in state court. But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment against the disgruntled employees, and returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon's state drug laws (485 U.S. 660 (1988)). On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause. The case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new posture. Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57150 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1512/argument None Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57131 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1434/argument None Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57238 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1076/argument None Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57225 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1264/argument None Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57234 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1474/argument None Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57128 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1400/argument None Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57113 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1374/argument California law required retailers to pay a 6 percent sales tax on in-state sales of tangible personal property and residents to pay a 6 percent use tax on such property if purchased out of state. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, incorporated in Louisiana, sold religious materials to California residents through several direct and mail-order "evangelistic crusades." After auditing his ministry, the California Board of Equalization ("Board") told Swaggart that under California law he had to register his ministry as a seller so the Board could collect the appropriate sales and use taxes. After paying the taxes, Swaggart petitioned the Board for a refund. When his petition was rejected, Swaggart challenged the Board in state court. Following two unfavorable rulings below, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Swaggart's petition for certiorari. Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57160 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_926/argument None Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57216 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1569/argument The Michigan Campaign Finance Act prohibited corporations from using treasury money for independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices. However, if a corporation set up an independent fund designated solely for political purposes, it could make such expenditures. The law was enacted with the assumption that "the unique legal and economic characteristics of corporations necessitate some regulation of their political expenditures to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption." The Michigan Chamber of Commerce wanted to support a candidate for Michigan's House of Representatives by using general funds to sponsor a newspaper advertisement. Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57089 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1319/argument None Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57243 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1150/argument In order to combat segregation in public schools in compliance with court directives, the Kansas City, Missouri School District (KCMSD) sought to enhance the quality of schools and to attract more white students from the suburbs. The KCMSD's ability to raise taxes, however, was limited by state law. After determining that the District did not have alternative means of raising revenue for the program, federal district judge Russell G. Clark ordered an increase of local property taxes for the 1991-92 fiscal year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision, but ruled that the courts should enjoin state tax laws that prevented the District from raising the necessary funds and allow the state to set tax rates. Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57191 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1640/argument None Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57115 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1198/argument None Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57173 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_6677/argument None Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57228 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_5050/argument None Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57148 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_1965/argument None Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57121 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_599/argument None Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57248 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_512/argument None Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57218 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_5909/argument None Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57258 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_952/argument None Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57116 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_6222/argument None Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57254 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_124/argument None Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57203 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_42/argument None Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57103 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_6025/argument None Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57246 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_995/argument None Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57125 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_2012/argument None Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57256 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_928/argument None Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57129 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_1979/argument None Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57223 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_6075/argument James was a youth arrested for the murder of another adolescent. During his trial a witness testifying on his behalf described James's appearance on the night of the supposed crime. This description contradicted statements which James had made to police officers the day after the crime. To expose this perjured testimony, prosecutors moved to introduce James's statements into the trial even though they were obtained illegally. Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57171 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_840/argument None Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57132 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_854/argument None Mon, 02 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57199 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_791/argument None Mon, 02 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57206 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1203/argument None Mon, 02 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57147 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1083/argument None Mon, 02 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000 57153 at http://www.oyez.org