Cases - 1989 term

Kansas v. Utilicorp United Inc.

Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2109

Petitioner

Kansas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Utilicorp United Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 199 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondent)

Floyd R. Finch, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas J. Greenan (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Utilicorp United Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Boyde v. California

Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6613

Petitioner

Boyde

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 370 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Frederick R. Millar, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Dennis A. Fischer (on behalf of the Petitioner, (appointed by this Court))

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Westside High School

8701 Pacific Street Omaha NE 68114

Omaha, NE 68114

United States

41° 14' 55.5828" N, 96° 2' 50.748" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1597

Petitioner

BOE of Westside Community Schools

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mergens

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 226 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the United States)

Jay A. Sekulow (Argued the cause for the private respondents)

Allen E. Daubman (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Was Westside's prohibition against the formation of a Christian club consistent with the Establishment Clause, thereby rendering the Equal Access Act unconstitutional?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mergens, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 20 U.S.C. 4071

No. In distinguishing between "curriculum" and "noncurriculum student groups," the Court held that since Westside permitted other noncurricular clubs, it was prohibited under the Equal Access Act from denying equal access to any after- school club based on the content of its speech. The proposed Christian club would be a noncurriculum group since no other course required students to become its members, its subject matter would not actually be taught in classes, it did not concern the school's cumulative body of courses, and its members would not receive academic credit for their participation. The Court added that the Equal Access Act was constitutional because it served an overriding secular purpose by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of philosophical, political, or other types of speech. As such, the Act protected the Christian club's formation even if its members engaged in religious discussions.

Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett

Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2035

Petitioner

Adams Fruit Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barrett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 638 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1990

Advocates

Bonita L. Kneeland (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Barrett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 29 U.S.C. 1854

None

Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly

Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-431

Petitioner

Yellow Freight System, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donnelly

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 820 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Jeffrey Ivan Pasek (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John J. Henely (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Donnelly, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

IRS v. FLRA

Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2123

Petitioner

IRS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

FLRA

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 922 (1990)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Robert J. Englehart (on behalf of the Respondent Federal Labor Relations Authority)

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gregory O'Duden (on behalf of the Respondent National Treasury Employees Union)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for IRS, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7101

None

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney

Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-386

Petitioner

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Feeney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 299 (1990)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1990

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1990

Advocates

Richard W. Miller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Joseph Lesser (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Feeney, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Butterworth v. Smith

Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1993

Petitioner

Butterworth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 624 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1990

Advocates

Gregg Darrow Thomas (on behalf of the Respondent)

George L. Waas (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Maislin Industries, US, Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc.

Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-624

Petitioner

Maislin Industries, US, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Primary Steel, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 116 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas M. Auchincloss, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Maislin Industries, US, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

English v. General Electric Co.

Wed, 25 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-152

Petitioner

English

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Electric Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 72 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the Respondent)

M. Travis Payne (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Christopher J. Wright (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for English, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Atomic Energy

None

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health

Wed, 06 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Cruzan Carterville, MO

United States

37° 8' 57.21" N, 94° 26' 34.8108" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1503

Petitioner

Cruzan

Respondent

Director, Missouri Dept. of Health

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 261 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1990

Advocates

William H. Colby (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Robert L. Presson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Kenneth W. Starr (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit Cruzan's parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on their daughter's behalf?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional. Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements.

Osborne v. Ohio

Tue, 05 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Clyde Osborne

"793 North Park Street**** No. 3" Columbus OH 43215

Columbus, OH 43215

United States

39° 58' 41.8476" N, 83° 0' 20.9268" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-5986

Appellee

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Osborne

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 103 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Advocates

S. Adele Shank (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Ronald J. O'Brien (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ohio, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

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.

United States v. Energy Resource Co.

Mon, 19 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-255

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Energy Resource Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 545 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Guy B. Moss (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Energy Resource Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Michigan Chamber of Commerce

600 S. Walnut Lansing MI 48933

Lansing, MI 48933

United States

42° 43' 36.7248" N, 84° 33' 27.0144" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1569

Appellee

Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Austin

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 652 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Advocates

Louis J. Caruso (on behalf of the Appellants)

Richard D. McLellan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the Michigan Campaign Finance Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Austin, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

No. In making its case, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce argued that it should have been excluded from the act's restrictions since the Chamber was a "nonprofit ideological corporation" which was more analogous to a political association than a business firm. The Court disagreed and upheld the Michigan law. Justice Marshall found that the Chamber was akin to a business group given its activities, linkages with community business leaders, and high degree of members (over seventy-five percent) which were business corporations. Furthermore, Marshall found that the statute was narrowly crafted and implemented to achieve the important goal of maintaining integrity in the political process.

Hughey v. United States

Tue, 27 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-5691

Petitioner

Hughey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 411 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1990

Advocates

Lucien B. Campbell (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hughey, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3663

None

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC

Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-493

Petitioner

University of Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

EEOC

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 182 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for EEOC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

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.

Sullivan v. Finkelstein

Tue, 24 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-504

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Finkelstein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 617 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1990

Advocates

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kenneth V. Handal (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sullivan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Whitmore v. Arkansas

Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-7146

Petitioner

Whitmore

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 149 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Advocates

J. Steven Clark (on behalf of the Respondents)

Arthur L. Allen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Arkansas, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Pennsylvania Public Welfare Dept. v. Davenport

Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-156

Petitioner

Pennsylvania Public Welfare Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davenport

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 552 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Walter W. Cohen (on behalf of the Petitioners)

David A. Searles (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Davenport, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Keller v. State Bar of California

Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1905

Petitioner

Keller

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

State Bar of California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 1 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Anthony T. Caso (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Seth M. Hufstedler (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Keller, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Department of Labor v. Triplett

Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1671

Petitioner

Department of Labor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Triplett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-1688

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 715 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Advocates

Jane Moran (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the Petitioner U.S. Department of Labor)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Department of Labor, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund

Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1105

Petitioner

Guidry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 365 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Advocates

Eldon E. Silverman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joseph M. Goldhammer (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Guidry, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Hallstrom v. Tillamook County

Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-42

Petitioner

Hallstrom

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tillamook County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 20 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Advocates

Kim T. Buckley (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Brian J. Martin (as amicus curiae supporting the Respondent)

I. Franklin Hunsaker (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Tillamook County, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 6972

None

Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA

Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-65

Petitioner

Fort Stewart Schools

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 641 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

William E. Persina (on behalf of the Respondents)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FLRA, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7102

None

Commissioner, INS v. Jean

Mon, 23 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-601

Petitioner

Commissioner, INS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jean

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 154 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Ira Jay Kurzban (on behalf of the Respondents)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jean, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc.

Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-334

Petitioner

Lytle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Household Mfg., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 545 (1990)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1990

Advocates

Judith Reed (on behalf of the Petitioner)

H. Lane Dennard, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lytle, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC

Wed, 28 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-453

Petitioner

Metro Broadcasting Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

FCC

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Astroline Communications Company Limited Partnership v. Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford, Inc., et al, No. 89-700

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 547 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

Harry F. Cole (on behalf of Respondent)

Margaret Polivy (on behalf of the Private Respondent)

Margot Polivy (Argued the cause for respondent Rainbow Broadcasting Company)

Gregory H. Guillot (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

J. Roger Wollenberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Daniel M. Armstrong (Argued the cause for the federal respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the FCC's minority preference policies violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for FCC, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

No. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that the FCC's minority preference policies were constitutional because they provided appropriate remedies for discrimination victims and were aimed at the advancement of legitimate congressional objectives for program diversity. The FCC's minority preference policies were closely related to, and substantially advanced, Congress's legitimate interest in affording the public a diverse array of programming options. The availability of program diversity serves the entire viewing and listening public, not just minorities, and is therefore consistent with First Amendment values. Finally, the Court noted that the FCC's minority preference policy did not unduly burden nonminorities. The FCC did not predetermine the number of distress sales, and could only invoke them in a small number of cases, when no competing bids were filed and the licensee elected to sell at a lower price rather than risk an FCC investigation (see also Adarand Constructors v. Pena).

Selvage v. Collins

Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6700

Petitioner

Selvage

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Collins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 108 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Advocates

Richard H. Burr (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert S. Walt (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Selvage, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

Mon, 16 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-640

Petitioner

Lujan

Respondent

National Wildlife Federation

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 871 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the case for the respondents)

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lujan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review

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."

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Alcan Aluminium

Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1400

Petitioner

Franchise Tax Board Of California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alcan Aluminium

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 331 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Advocates

Lawrence A. Salibra, II (on behalf of the Respondent)

Timothy G. Laddish (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Franchise Tax Board Of California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Michigan Citizens for Independent Press v. Thornburgh

Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1640

Petitioner

Michigan Citizens for Independent Press

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thornburgh

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 38 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1989

Decided

Monday, November 13, 1989

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the Respondents)

William B. Schultz (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Thornburgh, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Sperry Corp.

Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-952

Appellee

Sperry Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 52 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Advocates

John D. Seiver (on behalf of the Appellees)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno

Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1595

Petitioner

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bonjorno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-1771

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 827 (1990)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Richard P. McElroy (on behalf of the Petitioners/Cross-Respondents)

Henry T. Reath (on behalf of the Respondents/Cross-Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1961

None

Illinois v. Rodriguez

Tue, 20 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2018

Petitioner

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rodriguez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 177 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Joseph Claps (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James W. Reilley (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of United States as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Illinois, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Zinermon v. Burch

Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1965

Petitioner

Zinermon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burch

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 113 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Advocates

Richard M. Powers (on behalf of Respondent)

Louis F. Hubener, III (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Burch, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Collins v. Youngblood

Mon, 19 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-742

Petitioner

Collins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Youngblood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 37 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Charles A. Palmer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Jon R. Farrar (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Collins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10: Ex Post Facto

None

United States v. Montalvo-Murillo

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-163

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Montalvo-Murillo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 711 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Bernard J. Panetta, II (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Northbrook National Ins. Co. v. Brewer

Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-995

Petitioner

Northbrook National Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brewer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 6 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Advocates

Peter Michael Jung (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Timothy M. Fults (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Northbrook National Ins. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1332

None

Duro v. Reina

Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6546

Petitioner

Duro

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 676 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

John Trebon (on behalf of the Petitioner, (appointed by this Court))

Richard B. Wilks (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Duro, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1474

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 132 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1989

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1989

Advocates

Barring Coughlin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

White v. United States

Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-928

Petitioner

White

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 5 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1989

Decided

Monday, October 16, 1989

Advocates

Kenneth A. Payment (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Ferens v. John Deere Co.

Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1512

Petitioner

Ferens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John Deere Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 516 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Richard B. Tucker, III (on behalf of the Petitioners)

David P. Helwig (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ferens, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1404

None

Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles

Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-840

Petitioner

Golden State Transit Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Los Angeles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 103 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Advocates

John Haggerty (on behalf of the Respondent)

Zachary D. Fasman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Golden State Transit Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

United States v. Eichman

Mon, 14 May 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1433

Appellee

Eichman

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

United States v. Haggerty, No. 89-1434

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 310 (1990)

Argued

Monday, May 14, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1990

Advocates

William M. Kunstler (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Eichman, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 700

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.

Sawyer v. Smith

Wed, 25 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-5809

Petitioner

Sawyer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 227 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Dorothy A. Pendergast (on behalf of the Respondent)

Catherine Hancock (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Smith, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Kokinda

Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2031

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Kokinda

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 720 (1990)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the case for the United States)

Jay A. Sekulow (Argued the case for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Is a sidewalk that is entirely contained by Postal Service property and intended only for traffic to and from Postal Service buildings a public forum? If it is a public forum, does a prohibition of solicitation pass strict scrutiny? If it is not a public forum, does it pass a "reasonableness" test?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

In a divided opinion, the Court ruled that the prohibition was not unconstitutional. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for a four-member plurality, wrote that the sidewalk was not a public forum. "Regulation of speech activity on governmental property that has been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity, such as public streets and parks, is examined under strict scrutiny. ... But regulation of speech activity where the Government has not dedicated its property to First Amendment activity is examined only for reasonableness." The need to prevent solicitors from interrupting postal business satisfied this "reasonableness" test, so the convictions were constitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, held that it was unnecessary to determine whether the sidewalk was a public forum because the regulation met the traditional standard applied to time, place, and manner restrictions of protected expression.

General Motors Corp. v. United States

Wed, 21 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-369

Petitioner

General Motors Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 530 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

Theodore L. Garrett (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Verdugo-Urquidez's Residence Mexicali

United States

32° 38' 44.052" N, 115° 26' 43.2312" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1353

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Verdugo-Urquidez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 259 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (Argued the cause for the United States)

Michael Pancer (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

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.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz

Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Michigan State Police Department

333 S. Grand Ave. Lansing MI 48909

Lansing, MI 48909

United States

42° 43' 50.9304" N, 84° 33' 2.4228" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1897

Petitioner

Michigan Department of State Police

Respondent

Rick Sitz

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

Thomas L. Casey (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Stephen L. Nightingale (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Mark Granzotto (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Michigan Department of State Police, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: 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.

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.

Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1955

Appellee

Continental Bank Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lewis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 472 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Andrew S. Gordon (on behalf of the Appellees)

Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lewis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 101 Stat. 554

None

NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.

Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1685

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 775 (1990)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

James V. Carroll, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Begier v. IRS

Tue, 27 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-393

Petitioner

Begier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

IRS

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 53 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Brian J. Martin (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul J. Winterhalter (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for IRS, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Carden v. Arkoma Associates

Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1476

Petitioner

Carden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arkoma Associates

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 185 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Advocates

Richard K. Ingolia (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Mitchell J. Hoffman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Carden, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1332

None

Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. v. Sperling

Mon, 02 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1203

Petitioner

Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sperling

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 165 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 2, 1989

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1989

Advocates

John A. Ridley (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Leonard N. Flamm (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Sperling, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA)

None

Holland v. Illinois

Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-5050

Petitioner

Holland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 474 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1989

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1990

Advocates

Donald S. Honchell (on behalf of Petitioner)

Inge Fryklund (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Illinois, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Employment Division v. Smith

Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1213

Petitioner

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alfred Smith et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Dave Frohnmayer (Attorney General of Oregon, argued the cause for petitioners)

Craig J. Dorsay (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Employment Division, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.

California v. FERC

Tue, 20 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-333

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

FERC

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 490 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1990

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1990

Advocates

Sternen L. Nightingale (on behalf of the Respondents)

Roderick Eugene Walston (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FERC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Power

None

John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.

Mon, 02 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1083

Petitioner

John Doe Agency

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John Doe Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 146 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 2, 1989

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1989

Advocates

Milton Eisenberg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for John Doe Agency, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Georgia v. South Carolina

Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74 ORIG

Plaintiff

Georgia

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

South Carolina

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 376 (1990)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1990

Advocates

Patricia T. Barmeyer (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Thomas E. McCutchen, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Georgia, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Split Vote

None

Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight

Tue, 07 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1182

Petitioner

Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bouknight

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-6651

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 549 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, February 20, 1990

Advocates

George E. Burns, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Mitchell Y. Mirviss (on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 88-6651)

Ralph S. Tyler, III (on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 88-1182)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Howlett v. Rose

Tue, 20 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-5383

Petitioner

Howlett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rose

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 356 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1990

Advocates

Gardner W. Beckett, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Howlett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Clemons v. Mississippi

Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6873

Petitioner

Clemons

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 738 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, March 28, 1990

Advocates

Kenneth S. Resnick (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Marvin L. White, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Clemons, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

Swaggart Ministries v. California Board of Equalization

Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Jimmy Swaggart Ministries

8919 World Ministries Ave. Baton Rouge LA 70810

Baton Rouge, LA 70810

United States

30° 21' 2.0916" N, 91° 5' 14.478" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1374

Appellee

California Board of Equalization

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Swaggart Ministries

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 378 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Advocates

Michael W. McConnell (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Richard E. Nielsen (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California Board of Equalization, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Free Exercise of Religion

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.

Horton v. California

Wed, 21 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-7164

Petitioner

Horton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 128 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Martin S. Kaye (on behalf of the Respondent)

Juliana Drous (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Sisson v. Ruby

Mon, 23 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2041

Petitioner

Sisson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ruby

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 358 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1990

Advocates

Robert J. Kopka (on behalf of the Respondent)

Warren J. Marwedel (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sisson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1333

None

Maryland v. Buie

Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1369

Petitioner

Maryland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Buie

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 325 (1990)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Advocates

John L. Kopolow (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Dennis M. Sweeney (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Maryland, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Davis v. United States

Mon, 26 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-98

Petitioner

Davis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 472 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1990

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1990

Advocates

Shirley D. Peterson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. The LTV Corp.

Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-390

Petitioner

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

The LTV Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 633 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1990

Advocates

Lewis B. Kaden (on behalf of the Respondents)

Carol Connor Flowe (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Employee Retirement Income Security

None

Steelworkers v. Rawson

Mon, 26 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-322

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rawson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 362 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1990

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1990

Advocates

George H. Cohen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kenneth B. Howard (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Steelworkers, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin

Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-44

Petitioner

Burnham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 604 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Richard Sherman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James O. Devereaux (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

James v. Illinois

Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6075

Petitioner

James

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 307 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Advocates

Martin S. Carlson (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Terence M. Madsen (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Could James's statements be used against him even though they were obtained illegally?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for James, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

The Court held that the statements could not be used. Justice Brennan argued that prosecutors are allowed to introduce illegally obtained evidence when using it to impeach a defendant's own testimony. However, in this case, the Illinois Supreme Court wrongly expanded that practice making it applicable to all defense witnesses. Brennan concluded that this expansion "would frustrate rather than further the purposes underlying the exclusionary rule."

FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn.

Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1198

Petitioner

FTC

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), No. 88-1393

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 411 (1990)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1989

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1990

Advocates

Ernest J. Isenstadt (on behalf of the Petitioner/Cross-Respondent)

Willard K. Tom (on behalf of the Respondents/Cross-Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for FTC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Teamsters v. Terry

Wed, 06 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1719

Petitioner

Teamsters

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Terry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 558 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1990

Advocates

Robert M. Elliot (on behalf of the Respondents)

J. David James (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Terry, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

None

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.

Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-275

Petitioner

Cooter & Gell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hartmarx Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 384 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1990

Advocates

Stephen Allan Saltzburg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard Joseph Favretto (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hartmarx Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Portland Golf Club v. Commissioner

Tue, 17 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-530

Petitioner

Portland Golf Club

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Commissioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 154 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Clifford M. Sloan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Leonard J. Henzke, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Commissioner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Florida v. Wells

Mon, 04 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1835

Petitioner

Florida

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wells

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 1 (1990)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Advocates

Michael J. Neimand (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Huntley Johnson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Wells, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Kirkpatrick Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp.

Mon, 27 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2066

Petitioner

Kirkpatrick Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Environmental Tectonics Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 400 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Advocates

Edward Brodsky (on behalf of Petitioners)

Thomas W. Merrill (as amicus curiae, supporting Respondents)

Thomas B. Rutter (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Environmental Tectonics Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Stewart v. Abend

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2102

Petitioner

Stewart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abend

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 207 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Advocates

Louis P. Petrich (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Peter J. Anderson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Abend, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 17 U.S.C. 1

None

Lewis v. Jeffers

Wed, 21 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-189

Petitioner

Lewis

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jeffers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 764 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

Gerald R. Grant (on behalf of the Petitioners)

James S. Liebman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lewis, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

United States v. Munoz-Flores

Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1932

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Munoz-Flores

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 385 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1990

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1990

Advocates

Judy Clare Clarke (on behalf of the Respondent)

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 1: Origination Clause

None

California v. American Stores Co.

Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-258

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Stores Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 271 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1990

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1990

Advocates

H. Chester Horn, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health

Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-805

Appellee

Akron Center for Reproductive Health

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ohio

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 502 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1990

Advocates

Rita S. Eppler (on behalf of the Appellant)

Linda R. Sogg (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ohio, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Reves v. Ernst & Young

Mon, 27 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1480

Petitioner

Reves

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ernst & Young

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 56 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Advocates

John R. McCambridge (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John Matson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael R. Lazerwitz (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Reves, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None

Missouri v. Jenkins

Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1150

Petitioner

Missouri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jenkins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 33 (1990)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Advocates

Allen R. Snyder (Argued the cause for the respondents)

H. Bartow Farr, III (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the court order to increase property taxes violate Article III, the Tenth Amendment, or principles of federal/state comity?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jenkins, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

The Court held that the District Court "abused its discretion" by imposing a specific tax increase. The Court also held, however, that the modifications of the District Court's order made by the Court of Appeals satisfied "equitable and constitutional principles governing the District Court's power...." The majority found that court orders directing local governments to levy their own taxes were "plainly" judicial acts within the powers of federal courts. When a constitutional justification existed, courts had the authority to order tax increases despite statutory limitations. The Court reasoned that "[t]o hold otherwise would fail to take account of the obligations of local governments, under the Supremacy Clause, to fulfill the requirements that the Constitution imposes on them."

United States v. Dalm

Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1951

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dalm

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 596 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1990

Advocates

Robert B. Pierce (on behalf of the Respondent)

Christine A. Desan-Husson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Ngiraingas v. Sanchez

Mon, 08 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1281

Petitioner

Ngiraingas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sanchez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 182 (1990)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Advocates

John Patrick Mason (on behalf of the Respondents)

Jeffrey R. Siegel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

James A. Feldman (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sanchez, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Venegas v. Mitchell

Wed, 21 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1725

Petitioner

Venegas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 82 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Advocates

Charles A. Miller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard M. Mosk (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mitchell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Spallone v. United States

Mon, 02 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-854

Petitioner

Spallone

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 88-856

No. 88-870

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 265 (1990)

Argued

Monday, October 2, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Respondent)

James H. Harmon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Spallone, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Sullivan v. Zebley

Tue, 28 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1377

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zebley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 521 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, February 20, 1990

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard P. Weishaupt (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Zebley, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supplemental Security Income

None

Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers

Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-124

Petitioner

Breininger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sheet Metal Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 67 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Advocates

David L. Shapiro (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Respondent)

Francis J. Landry (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Breininger, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond

Wed, 21 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1943

Petitioner

Office of Personnel Management

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richmond

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 414 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1990

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gill Deford (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Office of Personnel Management, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 7: Appropriations Clause

None

Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment

Mon, 02 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-791

Petitioner

Pavelic & LeFlore

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marvel Entertainment

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 120 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 2, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Advocates

Jacob Laufer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Norman B. Arnoff (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pavelic & LeFlore, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Perpich v. Department of Defense

Tue, 27 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-542

Petitioner

Perpich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Department of Defense

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 334 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1990

Advocates

John R. Tunheim (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Department of Defense, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 10 U.S.C. 672

None

Hodgson v. Minnesota

Wed, 29 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1125

Petitioner

Hodgson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Minnesota

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Minnesota et al. v. Hodgson et al., No. 88-1309

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 417 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 29, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1990

Advocates

Janet Benshoof (Argued the cause for Hodgson)

John R. Tunheim (Chief Deputy Attorney General of Minnesota argued the cause for Minnesota)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Minnesota, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

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.

Idaho v. Wright

Wed, 18 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-260

Petitioner

Idaho

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wright

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 805 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

William C. Bryson (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Rolf Michael Kehne (on behalf of the Respondent)

James Thomas Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wright, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

None

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal

Tue, 24 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-645

Petitioner

Milkovich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lorain Journal

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 1 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Brent Lawson English (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard D. Panza (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Milkovich, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Tafflin v. Levitt

Mon, 27 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1650

Petitioner

Tafflin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Levitt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 455 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1989

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1990

Advocates

Andrew H. Marks (on behalf of the Respondents)

M. Norman Goldberger (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Levitt, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

None

Crandon v. United States

Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-931

Petitioner

Crandon

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-938

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 152 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Respondent)

Benjamin S. Sharp (on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 88-938)

Phillip Allen Lacovara (on behalf of the Petitioners in No. 88-931)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Crandon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 209

None

North Dakota v. United States

Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-926

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

North Dakota

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 423 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1990

Advocates

Nicholas Spaeth (on behalf of the Appellants)

Michael R. Lazerwitz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for North Dakota, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 21: Twenty-First Amendment

None

Grady v. Corbin

Wed, 21 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-474

Petitioner

Grady

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Corbin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 508 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Bridget R. Steller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard T. Farrell (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Corbin, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Michigan v. Harvey

Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-512

Petitioner

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harvey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 344 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Timothy A. Baughman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert M. Morgan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Michigan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Counsel

None

Alabama v. White

Tue, 17 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-789

Petitioner

Alabama

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

White

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 325 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1990

Advocates

David B. Byrne, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Joseph G. L. Marston, III (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Alabama, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Minnesota v. Olson

Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1916

Petitioner

Minnesota

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Olson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 91 (1990)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Advocates

Glenn P. Bruder (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stephen J. Marzen (on behalf of United States as amicus Curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Anne E. Peek (on benalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Olson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Astroline Communications v. Shurberg Broadcasting

Wed, 28 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-700

Petitioner

Astroline Communications

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shurberg Broadcasting

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Metro Broadcasting Inc. v FCC, No. 89-453

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 547 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

Harry F. Cole (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Roger Wollengerg (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Does the FCC's minority preference policy, giving preference to minority ownership bids for new radio or television broadcasting licenses and permitting "distress sales" to minority owned enterprises only, violate a nonminority bidder's' Fifth Amendment equal protection rights?

Conclusion

No. The Court, in the last opinion authorer by Justice William J. Brennan,Jr., held that the FCC's minority preference policies are constitutional because they provide appropriate remedies for discrimination victims and are aimed at the advancement of the legitimate congressional objective of program diversity. The FCC's minority preference policies were closely related to, and substantially advanced, Congress's legitimate interest in affording the public a diverse array of programming options. The availability of program diversity serves the entire viewing and listening public, not just minorities, and is therefore consistent with First Amendment values. Finally, the Court noted that the FCC's minority preference policy did not unduly burden nonminorities. The FCC did not predetermine the number of distress sales, and could only invoke them in a small number of cases, when no competing bids are filed and the licensee elects to sell at a lower price rather than risk an FCC investigation.

Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Schwalb

Tue, 03 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1979

Petitioner

Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schwalb

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-127

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 40 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Advocates

William T. Prince (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Christine A. Desan-Husson (on behalf of United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

Bruce A. Wilcox (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation

None

Preseault v. ICC

Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1076

Petitioner

Preseault

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

ICC

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 1 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Advocates

Michael M. Berger (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Brian J. Martin (on behalf of the federal Respondent)

John K. Dunleavy (on behalf of the state Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for ICC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

United States v. Ojeda Rios

Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-61

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ojeda Rios

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 257 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1990

Advocates

William C. Bryson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard A. Reeve (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

None

Butler v. McKellar

Mon, 30 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6677

Petitioner

Butler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

McKellar

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 407 (1990)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Donald John Zelenka (on behalf of the Respondents)

John H. Blume (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for McKellar, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assoc.

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2043

Petitioner

Wilder

Respondent

Virginia Hospital Assoc.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 498 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

R. Claire Guthrie (Argued the cause for petitioners)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Walter E. Dellinger, III (Argued the cause for the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Virginia Hospital Assoc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

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.

Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois

Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1775

Petitioner

Peel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 91 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Steven J. Marzen (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

William F. Moran, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Peel, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Sullivan v. Stroop

Mon, 26 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-535

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stroop

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 478 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

Clifford M. Sloan (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Jamie B. Aliperti (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sullivan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Walton v. Arizona

Wed, 17 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-7351

Petitioner

Walton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 639 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

Paul Joseph McMurdie (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Timothy K. Ford (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Arizona, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

None

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.

Mon, 26 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-243

Petitioner

Eli Lilly & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Medtronic, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 661 (1990)

Argued

Monday, February 26, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1990

Advocates

Timothy J. Malloy (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Arthur R. Miller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Medtronic, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 271

None

Saffle v. Parks

Wed, 01 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1264

Petitioner

Saffle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Parks

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 484 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, November 1, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Vivian Berger (on behalf of Respondent)

Robert A. Nance (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Saffle, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Maryland v. Craig

Wed, 18 Apr 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Circuit Court for Howard County

8360 Court Avenue Ellicott City MD 21043

Ellicott City, MD 21043

United States

39° 16' 5.9304" N, 76° 47' 56.5152" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-478

Petitioner

Maryland

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Craig

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 836 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1990

Advocates

J. Joseph Curran, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

William H. Murphy, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the closed-circuit testimony violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Maryland, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants face-to-face meetings with witnesses against them at trial, was not absolute. The Court found that "in certain narrow circumstances, 'competing interests, if closely examined, may warrant dispensing with confrontation at trial." The State's interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children, the Court held, could be sufficiently important to outweigh defendants' rights to face their accusers in court.

Illinois v. Perkins

Tue, 20 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Montgomery County jail

140 North Main St. Hillsboro IL 62049

Hillsboro, IL 62049

United States

39° 9' 45.576" N, 89° 29' 36.1932" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1972

Petitioner

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Perkins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 292 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Dan W. Evers (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)

Marcia L. Friedl (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

While being held in jail, Perkins freely confessed to committing a murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as another inmate.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Illinois, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

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.

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois

Tue, 16 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Illinois Governor's Office

100 W. Randolph Chicago IL 60601

Chicago, IL 60601

United States

41° 53' 5.0604" N, 87° 37' 52.788" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1872

Petitioner

Rutan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Republican Party of Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-2074

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 62 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Thomas P. Sullivan (Argued the cause for the respondents in No. 88-1872 and the petitioners in No. 88-2074)

Mary Lee Leahy (Argued the cause for the petitioners in No. 88-1872 and the respondents in No. 88-2074)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did Governor Thompson's practices in Illinois infringe upon the First Amendment rights of potential and current state employees?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rutan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Governor Thompson's practices amounted to an unconstitutional patronage system. The Court found that employees would feel "a significant obligation to support political positions held by their superiors" in lieu of their true beliefs in order to progress up the career ladder. The Court thus held that "promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs based on political affiliations or support" were impermissible infringements on the right to free expression of public employees. The Court noted that while the First Amendment was not "a tenure provision" protecting employees from "constructive discharge," it nevertheless prevented the government from interfering with its employees' freedom "to believe and associate."

Dole v. United Steel Workers of America

Mon, 06 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1434

Petitioner

Dole

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United Steel Workers of America

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 26 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Laurence E. Gold (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United Steel Workers of America, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 44 U.S.C. 3501

None

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.

Tue, 05 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1668

Petitioner

Atlantic Richfield Co.

Respondent

USA Petroleum Co.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 328 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1990

Advocates

Ronald C. Redcay (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Maxwell M. Blecher (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Atlantic Richfield Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

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.

Citibank, N.A. v. Wells Fargo Asia Ltd.

Mon, 19 Mar 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1260

Petitioner

Citibank, N.A.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wells Fargo Asia Ltd.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 660 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of United States as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Darryl Snider (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Citibank, N.A., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.

Tue, 31 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1319

Petitioner

Commissioner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Indianapolis Power & Light Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 203 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Advocates

Larry J. Stroble (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Pennsylvania v. Muniz

Tue, 27 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-213

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Muniz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 582 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1990

Advocates

J. Michael Eakin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard F. Maffett, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pennsylvania, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

None

Dowling v. United States

Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6025

Petitioner

Dowling

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 342 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Advocates

Stephen L. Nightingale (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert L. Tucker (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Washington v. Harper

Wed, 11 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-599

Petitioner

Washington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harper

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 210 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, February 27, 1990

Advocates

Brian Reed Phillips (on behalf of Respondent)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioners)

William L. Williams (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Washington, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Sullivan v. Everhart

Mon, 27 Nov 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1323

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Everhart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 83 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Advocates

Linda J. Olson (on behalf of Respondents)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sullivan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Texaco, Inc. v. Hasbrouck

Tue, 05 Dec 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2048

Petitioner

Texaco, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hasbrouck

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 543 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

Peter M. Fishbein (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of United States and FTC, as amici curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Robert H. Whaley (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hasbrouck, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Taylor v. United States

Wed, 28 Feb 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-7194

Petitioner

Taylor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 575 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

Bruce D. Livingston (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Michael R. Lazerwitz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 924

None

Blystone v. Pennsylvania

Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-6222

Petitioner

Blystone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 299 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1990

Advocates

Ernest D. Preate, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul R. Gettleman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pennsylvania, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas

Wed, 04 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2012

Petitioner

FW/PBS, Inc.

Respondent

Dallas

Consolidation

No. 87-2051

No. 88-49

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 215 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, October 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, January 9, 1990

Advocates

Analeslie Muncy (on behalf of the Respondent)

John H. Weston (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for FW/PBS, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

McKoy v. North Carolina

Tue, 10 Oct 1989 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-5909

Petitioner

McKoy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 433 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, October 10, 1989

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1990

Advocates

Joan Herre Byers (on behalf of the Respondent)

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for McKoy, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

None

New York v. Harris

Wed, 10 Jan 1990 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1000

Petitioner

New York

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 14 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Advocates

Peter D. Coddington (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (by invitation of the Court as amicus curiae, in support of judgment below; on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for New York, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

None