http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Wed, 04 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-615_19920304-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_615/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 22 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-615_19920422-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_615/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 03 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Plaintiffs filed two state-law tort actions in New Hampshire state courts, alleging that one of them had contracted AIDS from a transfusion of contaminated blood during surgery. The second action was brought against the Red Cross after plaintiffs discovered that it had supplied the tainted blood. Before the state court could decide a motion to consolidate the cases, the Red Cross invoked the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, to remove the second suit to federal court. The district court rejected the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, holding that the Red Cross' charter provision allowing it to "sue and be sued in courts of law and equity, State or Federal, within the jurisdiction of the United States," 36 U.S.C. Section 2, conferred original jurisdiction on the federal district court.</p> <p>Plaintiffs filed two state-law tort actions in New Hampshire state courts, alleging that one of them had contracted AIDS from a transfusion of contaminated blood during surgery. The second action was brought against the Red Cross after plaintiffs discovered that it had supplied the tainted blood. Before the state court could decide a motion to consolidate the cases, the Red Cross invoked the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, to remove the second suit to federal court. The district court rejected the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, holding that the Red Cross' charter provision allowing it to "sue and be sued in courts of law and equity, State or Federal, within the jurisdiction of the United States," 36 U.S.C. Section 2, conferred original jurisdiction on the federal district court.</p><br/><br/><p>Does the "sue and be sued" provision in the Red Cross' charter confer original jurisdiction on federal courts over all cases to which the Red Cross is a party?</p> 91-594_19920303-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_594/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 31 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-367_19920331-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_367/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 08 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1141_19911008-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1141/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 11 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1262_19911211-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1262/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 03 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-611_19920303-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_611/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 14 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-159_19920114-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_159/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 07 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-913_19911007-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_913/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 16 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Several abortion clinics sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from conducting demonstrations at clinics in Washington, D.C. The clinics claimed that the protesters had violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." The protesters had sought to deny women their "right to abortion" and their right to interstate travel, the clinics argued. The District Court agreed, holding that Bray and others, by blocking access to the clinics, had conspired to deprive women seeking abortions of their right to interstate travel. The District Court also ruled for the clinics on state law trespassing and public nuisance claims, ordering the protesters to stop trespassing on or obstructing access to clinics. Finally, the District Court ordered the protesters to pay the clinics' attorney's fees and costs on the 1985(3) claim.</p> <p>Several abortion clinics sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from conducting demonstrations at clinics in Washington, D.C. The clinics claimed that the protesters had violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." The protesters had sought to deny women their "right to abortion" and their right to interstate travel, the clinics argued. The District Court agreed, holding that Bray and others, by blocking access to the clinics, had conspired to deprive women seeking abortions of their right to interstate travel. The District Court also ruled for the clinics on state law trespassing and public nuisance claims, ordering the protesters to stop trespassing on or obstructing access to clinics. Finally, the District Court ordered the protesters to pay the clinics' attorney's fees and costs on the 1985(3) claim.</p><br/><br/><p>Did anti-abortion protesters who obstructed access to Washington, D.C. abortion clinics violate 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) by conspiring to deny women their "right to abortion" or right to interstate travel?</p> 90-985_19911016-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_985/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 06 Oct 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Several abortion clinics sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from conducting demonstrations at clinics in Washington, D.C. The clinics claimed that the protesters had violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." The protesters had sought to deny women their "right to abortion" and their right to interstate travel, the clinics argued. The District Court agreed, holding that Bray and others, by blocking access to the clinics, had conspired to deprive women seeking abortions of their right to interstate travel. The District Court also ruled for the clinics on state law trespassing and public nuisance claims, ordering the protesters to stop trespassing on or obstructing access to clinics. Finally, the District Court ordered the protesters to pay the clinics' attorney's fees and costs on the 1985(3) claim.</p> <p>Several abortion clinics sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from conducting demonstrations at clinics in Washington, D.C. The clinics claimed that the protesters had violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." The protesters had sought to deny women their "right to abortion" and their right to interstate travel, the clinics argued. The District Court agreed, holding that Bray and others, by blocking access to the clinics, had conspired to deprive women seeking abortions of their right to interstate travel. The District Court also ruled for the clinics on state law trespassing and public nuisance claims, ordering the protesters to stop trespassing on or obstructing access to clinics. Finally, the District Court ordered the protesters to pay the clinics' attorney's fees and costs on the 1985(3) claim.</p><br/><br/><p>Did anti-abortion protesters who obstructed access to Washington, D.C. abortion clinics violate 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) by conspiring to deny women their "right to abortion" or right to interstate travel?</p> 90-985_19921006-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_985/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 24 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-535_19920324-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_535/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 20 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-779_19920420-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_779/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 08 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Freeman, a Tennessee political campaign treasurer, challenged the constitutionality of the Tennessee Code forbidding the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of entrances to polling facilities. On appeal from a lower court's dismissal, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, finding that the 100-foot ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted Burson certiorari.</p> <p>Freeman, a Tennessee political campaign treasurer, challenged the constitutionality of the Tennessee Code forbidding the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of entrances to polling facilities. On appeal from a lower court's dismissal, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, finding that the 100-foot ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted Burson certiorari.</p><br/><br/><p>Did Tennessee's 100-foot limit violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech?</p> 90-1056_19911008-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1056/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 21 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-471_19920421-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_471/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 08 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Rose Cipollone died at 58 from lung cancer. She smoked for 42 years. Before her death, she and her husband sued several cigarette manufacturers in federal court for damages resulting from Mrs. Cipollone lung cancer. A trial court judgment of $400,000 was reserved in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Cipollone family appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p> <p>Rose Cipollone died at 58 from lung cancer. She smoked for 42 years. Before her death, she and her husband sued several cigarette manufacturers in federal court for damages resulting from Mrs. Cipollone lung cancer. A trial court judgment of $400,000 was reserved in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Cipollone family appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p><br/><br/><p>Do federally mandated cigarette warnings pre-empt the Cipollones' common law claims against cigarette manufacturers?</p> 90-1038_19911008-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1038/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 13 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Rose Cipollone died at 58 from lung cancer. She smoked for 42 years. Before her death, she and her husband sued several cigarette manufacturers in federal court for damages resulting from Mrs. Cipollone lung cancer. A trial court judgment of $400,000 was reserved in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Cipollone family appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p> <p>Rose Cipollone died at 58 from lung cancer. She smoked for 42 years. Before her death, she and her husband sued several cigarette manufacturers in federal court for damages resulting from Mrs. Cipollone lung cancer. A trial court judgment of $400,000 was reserved in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Cipollone family appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p><br/><br/><p>Do federally mandated cigarette warnings pre-empt the Cipollones' common law claims against cigarette manufacturers?</p> 90-1038_19920113-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1038/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 21 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-810_19920421-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_810/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 05 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1279_19911105-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1279/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 21 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1791_19920121-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1791/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 05 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-408_19911105-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_408/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 12 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-6704_19911112-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6704/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 24 Feb 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1846_19920224-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1846/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 15 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-741_19911015-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_741/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 09 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-857_19911009-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_857/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 24 Feb 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-857_19920224-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_857/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 10 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1029_19911210-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1029/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 25 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-17_19920325-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_17/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 09 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1074_19911009-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1074/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 09 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-6105_19911209-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6105/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 13 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-72_19920113-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_72/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 31 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-538_19920331-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_538/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 30 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-636_19920330-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_636/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 04 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-5844_19911104-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_5844/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 11 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-918_19911211-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_918/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 21 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, a census must be conducted every ten years and the distribution of Representatives in Congress adjusted to provide proportional representation. The census is designed and carried out by the Secretary of Commerce before the results are forwarded to the President, who determines the number of Representatives each state will receive. In 1990, for only the second time since 1900, the census allocated employees of the Department of Defense who were stationed oversees to the states designated their "homes of record." Massachusetts claimed that this adjustment of the census shifted one Representative from Massachusetts to Washington state. They brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution, arguing that the allocation of overseas personnel to their "homes of record" was arbitrary and capricious under the APA standards and did not meet the constitutional requirement of counting the number of people "in each State."</p> <p>Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, a census must be conducted every ten years and the distribution of Representatives in Congress adjusted to provide proportional representation. The census is designed and carried out by the Secretary of Commerce before the results are forwarded to the President, who determines the number of Representatives each state will receive. In 1990, for only the second time since 1900, the census allocated employees of the Department of Defense who were stationed oversees to the states designated their "homes of record." Massachusetts claimed that this adjustment of the census shifted one Representative from Massachusetts to Washington state. They brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution, arguing that the allocation of overseas personnel to their "homes of record" was arbitrary and capricious under the APA standards and did not meet the constitutional requirement of counting the number of people "in each State."</p><br/><br/><p>Did the Secretary of Commerce's decision to apportion overseas personnel of the Department of Defense to their "homes of record" for census purposes meet the constitutional requirement of a census counting the number of people "in each State," or was the procedure "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act?</p> 91-1502_19920421-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_1502/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 07 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 89-1290_19911007-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_89_1290/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 23 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1676_19920323-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1676/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 10 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1390_19911210-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1390/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 26 Feb 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-372_19920226-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_372/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 07 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-6352_19911007-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6352/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 15 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-681_19911015-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_681/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 08 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-848_19911008-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_848/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 13 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-727_19911113-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_727/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 04 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1361_19911204-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1361/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 13 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Keith Hudson, a Louisiana inmate, claimed that he was beaten by Marvin Woods and Jack McMillian, two prison guards, while their supervisor, Arthur Mezo, watched. Hudson sued the guards in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows individuals to bring suit for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution." Hudson argued that they had violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The District Court ruled that the guards had used force when there was no need to do so, violating the Eighth Amendment, and that Hudson was therefore entitled to damages. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, however, finding that an inmate must demonstrate "significant injury" when he claims that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by the use of excessive force.</p> <p>Keith Hudson, a Louisiana inmate, claimed that he was beaten by Marvin Woods and Jack McMillian, two prison guards, while their supervisor, Arthur Mezo, watched. Hudson sued the guards in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows individuals to bring suit for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution." Hudson argued that they had violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The District Court ruled that the guards had used force when there was no need to do so, violating the Eighth Amendment, and that Hudson was therefore entitled to damages. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, however, finding that an inmate must demonstrate "significant injury" when he claims that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by the use of excessive force.</p><br/><br/><p>Must an inmate alleging that his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment has been violated by the excessive use of force demonstrate "significant injury" to prevail on his claim?</p> 90-6531_19911113-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6531/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 16 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-925_19911016-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_925/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 13 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1090_19911113-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1090/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 04 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1342_19911104-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1342/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 12 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1278_19911112-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1278/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 25 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>New York City's airport authority banned repetitive solicitation of money within airline terminals. Solicitation was permitted outside the terminals. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness solicits funds in public places. It challenged the regulation. A federal district court granted an injunction against the airport authority. The authority appealed.</p> <p>New York City's airport authority banned repetitive solicitation of money within airline terminals. Solicitation was permitted outside the terminals. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness solicits funds in public places. It challenged the regulation. A federal district court granted an injunction against the airport authority. The authority appealed.</p><br/><br/><p>Does the regulation violate the First Amendment free speech clause?</p> 91-155_19920325-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_155/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 06 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1124_19911106-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1124/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 15 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1859_19920115-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1859/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 22 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1918_19920422-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1918/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 12 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Lechmere owned and operated a large retail store in a shopping plaza. Nonemployee union organizers campaigned to organize the store employees by entering the company's parking lot and placing handbills on car windshields. Lechmere prohibited solicitation and literature distribution on its property. The union organizers persisted in their leafleting campaign despite continued objections from Lechmere. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Lechmere. An NLRB judge ruled in the union's favor.</p> <p>Lechmere owned and operated a large retail store in a shopping plaza. Nonemployee union organizers campaigned to organize the store employees by entering the company's parking lot and placing handbills on car windshields. Lechmere prohibited solicitation and literature distribution on its property. The union organizers persisted in their leafleting campaign despite continued objections from Lechmere. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Lechmere. An NLRB judge ruled in the union's favor.</p><br/><br/><p>May nonemployee union organizers trespass on private property to solicit union support?</p> 90-970_19911112-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_970/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 25 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey banned the distribution of flyers, brochures, pamphlets and other printed material at its airport terminals. Members of a religious group wanted to perform a ritual involving the distibution of literature at these airports. The group challenged the regulation on free expression and and free exercise grounds of the First Amendment.</p> <p>The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey banned the distribution of flyers, brochures, pamphlets and other printed material at its airport terminals. Members of a religious group wanted to perform a ritual involving the distibution of literature at these airports. The group challenged the regulation on free expression and and free exercise grounds of the First Amendment.</p><br/><br/><p>Does the regulation banning the distribution of literature at airports violate the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment?</p> 91-339_19920325-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_339/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 06 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In keeping with the practice of several other public middle and high school principals in Providence, Rhode Island, Robert E. Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to speak at his school's graduation ceremony. Daniel Weisman's daughter, Deborah, was among the graduates. Hoping to stop the rabbi from speaking at his daughter's graduation, Weisman sought a temporary restaining order in District Court - but was denied. After the ceremony, where prayers were recited, Weisman filed for a permanent injunction barring Lee and other Providence public school officials from inviting clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at their schools' ceremonies. When the Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court ruling against the schools, Lee appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.</p> <p>In keeping with the practice of several other public middle and high school principals in Providence, Rhode Island, Robert E. Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to speak at his school's graduation ceremony. Daniel Weisman's daughter, Deborah, was among the graduates. Hoping to stop the rabbi from speaking at his daughter's graduation, Weisman sought a temporary restaining order in District Court - but was denied. After the ceremony, where prayers were recited, Weisman filed for a permanent injunction barring Lee and other Providence public school officials from inviting clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at their schools' ceremonies. When the Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court ruling against the schools, Lee appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.</p><br/><br/><p>Does the inclusion of clergy who offer prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?</p> 90-1014_19911106-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1014/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 02 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In 1986, Lucas bought two residential lots on the Isle of Palms, a South Carolina barrier island. He intended to build single-family homes as on the adjacent lots. In 1988, the state legislature enacted a law which barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land. The law aimed to protect erosion and destruction of barrier islands. Lucas sued and won a large monetary judgment. The state appealed.</p> <p>In 1986, Lucas bought two residential lots on the Isle of Palms, a South Carolina barrier island. He intended to build single-family homes as on the adjacent lots. In 1988, the state legislature enacted a law which barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land. The law aimed to protect erosion and destruction of barrier islands. Lucas sued and won a large monetary judgment. The state appealed.</p><br/><br/><p>Does the construction ban depriving Lucas of all economically viable use of his property amount to a "taking" calling for "just compensation" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 91-453_19920302-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_453/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 03 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (S7(a)(2)) required federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any authorized actions did not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or critically destroy natural habitats. A 1986 amendment to the act limited it scope to actions in the United States or on the high seas. Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the new amendment erred by providing for a geographic limit on the original law.</p> <p>The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (S7(a)(2)) required federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any authorized actions did not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or critically destroy natural habitats. A 1986 amendment to the act limited it scope to actions in the United States or on the high seas. Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the new amendment erred by providing for a geographic limit on the original law.</p><br/><br/><p>Do the respondents have standing to sue?</p> 90-1424_19911203-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1424/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 09 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-6861_19911209-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6861/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 25 Feb 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-8370_19920225-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_8370/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 04 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-838_19911104-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_838/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 03 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1604_19920303-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1604/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 21 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-5118_19920121-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_5118/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 21 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1802_19920121-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1802/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 30 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 required states alone or in compacts with other states to dispose of such radioactive waste within their borders. New York State and Allegany and Courtland counties were frustrated in their compliance efforts by resistance from residents to proposed radioactive waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed suit against the federal government, questioning the authority of Congress to regulate state waste management.</p> <p>The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 required states alone or in compacts with other states to dispose of such radioactive waste within their borders. New York State and Allegany and Courtland counties were frustrated in their compliance efforts by resistance from residents to proposed radioactive waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed suit against the federal government, questioning the authority of Congress to regulate state waste management.</p><br/><br/><p>Does the Low-Level Waste Act violate the Tenth Amendment and the "guarantee clause" of Article Four?</p> 91-543_19920330-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_543/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 25 Feb 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In a statewide ballot, California residents approved the addition of Article XIIIA to their State Constitution. Article XIIIA's "acquisition value" provision limited property assessment value increases to two percent, if caused by changes in ownership or new construction improvements. Article XIIIA exempted two types of transfers from this reassessment limit: first, if the principal seller is 55 or older and moved to a home of equal or lower value, and second, when a transfer occurred between parents and children. One of Article XIIIA's effects is that over time the taxes of new property owners, adjusted to reflect recent values, would be substantially higher than long-term property owner's taxes. A new property owner filed suit to challenge the state constitutional amendment.</p> <p>In a statewide ballot, California residents approved the addition of Article XIIIA to their State Constitution. Article XIIIA's "acquisition value" provision limited property assessment value increases to two percent, if caused by changes in ownership or new construction improvements. Article XIIIA exempted two types of transfers from this reassessment limit: first, if the principal seller is 55 or older and moved to a home of equal or lower value, and second, when a transfer occurred between parents and children. One of Article XIIIA's effects is that over time the taxes of new property owners, adjusted to reflect recent values, would be substantially higher than long-term property owner's taxes. A new property owner filed suit to challenge the state constitutional amendment.</p><br/><br/><p>Does Article XIIIA's "acquisition value provision," which created a dramatic disparity in the property taxes paid by long-term property owners as compared with new property owners, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against new property owners?</p> 90-1912_19920225-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1912/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 07 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1126_19911007-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1126/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 13 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) may enter into "trackage rights" agreements to use tracks owned and used by freight railroads. Section 562(d) of the act also states that Amtrak may buy tracks from private railroads, and may ask the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to condemn tracks owned by those railroads if they cannot agree on sale terms, provided that the tracks in question are "required for intercity rail passenger service." Amtrak's need for the tracks is established unless the private railroad can show either that its ability to carry out its obligations as a common carrier (that is, a transporter of public goods) will be seriously hampered or that Amtrak's needs can be met by the purchase of alternative property.</p> <p>Amtrak had a "trackage rights" agreement with Boston and Maine Railroad (B & M). Amtrak claimed that it was forced to discontinue this agreement because B & M did not properly maintain its tracks. Amtrak then entered into an agreement with the Central Vermont Railroad (CV), under which it would acquire the B & M track and sell it to CV, which would take over maintenance of the track but grant "trackage rights" to Amtrak and usage rights to B & M. When B & M declined Amtrak's offer to purchase the track, Amtrak asked the ICC to condemn the track (thus allowing Amtrak to seize it). The ICC granted Amtrak's request. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, sent the case back to the ICC for reconsideration, because Amtrak had not demonstrated the need for ownership, just for use (demonstrated by its intent to convey the property to CV). Amtrak petitioned the appeals court to rehear the case, and while the petition was pending Congress amended the RPSA to explicitly allow Amtrak to seize property with the ICC's permission and then convey it to another party if that would further its mission. The appeals court denied rehearing, however, holding that the condemnation had been invalid because it was not "required for intercity rail passenger service."</p> <p>Under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) may enter into "trackage rights" agreements to use tracks owned and used by freight railroads. Section 562(d) of the act also states that Amtrak may buy tracks from private railroads, and may ask the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to condemn tracks owned by those railroads if they cannot agree on sale terms, provided that the tracks in question are "required for intercity rail passenger service." Amtrak's need for the tracks is established unless the private railroad can show either that its ability to carry out its obligations as a common carrier (that is, a transporter of public goods) will be seriously hampered or that Amtrak's needs can be met by the purchase of alternative property.</p> <p>Amtrak had a "trackage rights" agreement with Boston and Maine Railroad (B & M). Amtrak claimed that it was forced to discontinue this agreement because B & M did not properly maintain its tracks. Amtrak then entered into an agreement with the Central Vermont Railroad (CV), under which it would acquire the B & M track and sell it to CV, which would take over maintenance of the track but grant "trackage rights" to Amtrak and usage rights to B & M. When B & M declined Amtrak's offer to purchase the track, Amtrak asked the ICC to condemn the track (thus allowing Amtrak to seize it). The ICC granted Amtrak's request. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, sent the case back to the ICC for reconsideration, because Amtrak had not demonstrated the need for ownership, just for use (demonstrated by its intent to convey the property to CV). Amtrak petitioned the appeals court to rehear the case, and while the petition was pending Congress amended the RPSA to explicitly allow Amtrak to seize property with the ICC's permission and then convey it to another party if that would further its mission. The appeals court denied rehearing, however, holding that the condemnation had been invalid because it was not "required for intercity rail passenger service."</p><br/><br/><p>Was the Interstate Commerce Commission's decision to permit Amtrak to seize the property of B & M Railroad under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 reasonable?</p> 90-1419_19920113-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1419/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 20 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-913_19920420-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_913/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 26 Feb 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-122_19920226-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_122/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 22 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.</p> <p>The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.</p><br/><br/><p>Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?</p> 91-744_19920422-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_744/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 12 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-711_19911112-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_711/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 22 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-194_19920122-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_194/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 04 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The trial court dismissed this charge. The state supreme court reversed. R.A.V. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p> <p>Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The trial court dismissed this charge. The state supreme court reversed. R.A.V. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p><br/><br/><p>Is the ordinance overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the First Amendment free speech clause?</p> 90-7675_19911204-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 01 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In 1981, Argentina instituted a foreign exchange insurance contract program (FEIC), under which it effectively assumed the risk of currency depreciation in cross-border transactions. When Argentina could not cover the FEIC contracts, it issued "Bonods," which provided for repayment in U.S. dollars through transfer on the market in one of several locations. Subsequently, when Argentina concluded that it lacked sufficient foreign exchange to retire the Bonods, it unilaterally extended the time for payment and offered bondholders substitute instruments as a means of rescheduling the debts. Ultimately, two Panamanian corporations and a Swiss bank brought a breach-of-contract action in Federal District Court. The court denied Argentina's motion to dismiss. In affirming, the Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which subjects foreign states to suit in American courts for acts taken "in connection with a commercial activity" that have "a direct effect in the United States."</p> <p>In 1981, Argentina instituted a foreign exchange insurance contract program (FEIC), under which it effectively assumed the risk of currency depreciation in cross-border transactions. When Argentina could not cover the FEIC contracts, it issued "Bonods," which provided for repayment in U.S. dollars through transfer on the market in one of several locations. Subsequently, when Argentina concluded that it lacked sufficient foreign exchange to retire the Bonods, it unilaterally extended the time for payment and offered bondholders substitute instruments as a means of rescheduling the debts. Ultimately, two Panamanian corporations and a Swiss bank brought a breach-of-contract action in Federal District Court. The court denied Argentina's motion to dismiss. In affirming, the Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which subjects foreign states to suit in American courts for acts taken "in connection with a commercial activity" that have "a direct effect in the United States."</p><br/><br/><p>Was the Republic of Argentina's default on certain bonds an act taken "in connection with a commercial activity" that had a "direct effect in the United States" so as to subject Argentina to suit in an American court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976?</p> 91-763_19920401-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_763/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 15 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-8466_19920115-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_8466/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 06 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1102_19911106-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1102/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 02 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1596_19911202-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1596/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 09 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-954_19911009-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_954/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 25 Feb 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-6382_19920225-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_6382/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 15 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>To keep criminals from profiting from crimes by selling their stories, New York State's 1977 "Son of Sam" law ordered that proceeds from such deals be turned over to the New York State Crime Victims Board. The Board was to deposit the money into escrow accounts which victims could later claim through civil suits. In 1987 the Board ordered Henry Hill, a former gangster who sold his story to Simon & Schuster, to turn over his payments from a book deal.</p> <p>To keep criminals from profiting from crimes by selling their stories, New York State's 1977 "Son of Sam" law ordered that proceeds from such deals be turned over to the New York State Crime Victims Board. The Board was to deposit the money into escrow accounts which victims could later claim through civil suits. In 1987 the Board ordered Henry Hill, a former gangster who sold his story to Simon & Schuster, to turn over his payments from a book deal.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the Son of Sam law violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?</p> 90-1059_19911015-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1059/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 02 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-7477_19911202-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7477/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 02 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-5843_19920302-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_5843/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 15 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-584_19911015-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_584/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 09 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-6616_19911209-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6616/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 02 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACW) provides that, in order to be reimbursed for adoption and foster care services, a state must submit a plan for the administration of those services to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services for approval. In order to be approved, the plan must be "in effect in all" a state's political subdivisions and "be mandatory upon them," and must state that "reasonable efforts will be made" to prevent removal of children from their homes and to facilitate reunification of families where removal has occurred. Several children in the Illinois foster care program brought suit against the Director and the Guardianship Administrator of the Illinois program under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides private individuals a right to sue for "deprivation of any rights ... secured by [federal] laws." They charged that Illinois had failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunite families, and that it was required to do so by the AACW. The Director and Guardianship Administrator argued that the children had no standing to sue because the AACW did not create substantive rights that had to be reinforced, but merely stated what contents an administrative plan needed to have in order to receive approval. The federal District Court sided with the children, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.</p> <p>The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACW) provides that, in order to be reimbursed for adoption and foster care services, a state must submit a plan for the administration of those services to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services for approval. In order to be approved, the plan must be "in effect in all" a state's political subdivisions and "be mandatory upon them," and must state that "reasonable efforts will be made" to prevent removal of children from their homes and to facilitate reunification of families where removal has occurred. Several children in the Illinois foster care program brought suit against the Director and the Guardianship Administrator of the Illinois program under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides private individuals a right to sue for "deprivation of any rights ... secured by [federal] laws." They charged that Illinois had failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunite families, and that it was required to do so by the AACW. The Director and Guardianship Administrator argued that the children had no standing to sue because the AACW did not create substantive rights that had to be reinforced, but merely stated what contents an administrative plan needed to have in order to receive approval. The federal District Court sided with the children, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.</p><br/><br/><p>Does the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 create a "right" for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983, allowing children affected by a state's adoption program to bring a private suit against its administrators?</p> 90-1488_19911202-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1488/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 02 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-571_19920302-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_571/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 21 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-971_19920421-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_971/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 05 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1491_19911105-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1491/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 04 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-860_19920304-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_860/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 03 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1341_19911203-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1341/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 09 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-747_19911009-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_747/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 24 Feb 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 118orig_19920224-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_118_orig/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 01 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-712_19920401-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_712/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 21 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-42_19920121-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_42/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 14 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1599_19920114-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1599/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 13 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>After 17 years of litigation, Mississippi's public university system remained racially divided. The state had operated legally segregated universities, but had since adopted race-neutral policies to dismantle its de jure segregated system. All students could choose which school to attend, though the choices produced nearly all white and all black institutions of higher learning. This case was decided together with that of Ayers v. Fordice.</p> <p>After 17 years of litigation, Mississippi's public university system remained racially divided. The state had operated legally segregated universities, but had since adopted race-neutral policies to dismantle its de jure segregated system. All students could choose which school to attend, though the choices produced nearly all white and all black institutions of higher learning. This case was decided together with that of Ayers v. Fordice.</p><br/><br/><p>Has Mississippi met its affirmative duty under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to dismantle its prior dual university system?</p> 90-1205_19911113-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1205/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 09 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1629_19911209-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1629/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 10 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1577_19911210-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1577/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 20 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-872_19920420-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_872/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 13 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-164_19920113-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_164/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 22 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1972_19920122-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1972/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 15 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1745_19920115-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1745/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 23 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-5771_19920323-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_5771/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 05 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-6113_19911105-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6113/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 16 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-889_19911016-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_889/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 06 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-6297_19911106-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6297/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 03 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1150_19911203-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1150/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 22 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-119_19920122-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_119/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 16 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-967_19911016-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_967/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 24 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-542_19920324-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_542/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 14 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 91-126_19920114-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_126/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 04 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 112orig_19911104-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_112_orig/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 22 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet.<br/><br/>No details yet. 90-1947_19920122-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1947/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist