http://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/podcast U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_5653/argument None Mon, 26 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57403 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_725/argument None Wed, 21 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57306 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_515/argument On October 7, 1989, Todd Mitchell, a young black man, instigated an attack against a young white boy. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County. According to Wisconsin statute, Mitchell's sentence was increased, because the court found that he had selected his victim based on race. Mitchell challenged the constitutionality of the increase in his penalty, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected his claims. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed. Wed, 21 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57394 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_486/argument None Wed, 21 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57357 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_357/argument The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57299 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_6073/argument None Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57266 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_602/argument None Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57366 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_6033/argument None Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57303 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_641/argument None Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57362 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_484/argument None Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57375 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_311/argument None Wed, 31 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57359 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_479/argument None Wed, 31 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57388 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7604/argument None Tue, 30 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57300 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_551/argument None Tue, 30 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57382 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_102/argument None Tue, 30 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57402 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_466/argument None Mon, 29 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57358 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_603/argument Section 602(7)(B) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 provides that cable television systems be franchised by local governmental authorities, but exempts facilities serving "only subscribers in 1 or more multiple unit dwellings under common ownership, control, or management, unless such...facilities use any public right-of-way." When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that satellite master antenna television (SMATV) systems, which typically receive a satellite signal through a rooftop dish and then retransmits the signal by wire to units within a building or a building complex, are subject to the franchise requirement if their transmission lines interconnect separately owned and managed buildings or if its lines use or cross any public right-of-way, Beach Communications, Inc. and other SMATV operators petitioned the Court of Appeals for review. Among other things, the appellate court found that section 602(7) violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because there was no rational basis for distinguishing between those facilities exempted by the statute and SMATV systems linking separately owned and managed buildings. Mon, 29 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57293 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_5129/argument None Mon, 29 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57274 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_190/argument None Mon, 29 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57321 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_8685/argument None Wed, 24 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57401 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_207/argument None Wed, 24 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57348 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_8674/argument John Angus Smith offered to trade an automatic weapon, a MAC-10, to an undercover officer for cocaine. Subsequently, he was charged with numerous firearm and drug trafficking offenses. Federal law imposes mandatory sentence enhancement penalties, specifically 30 years for a "machinegun", if a defendant "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime[,] uses . . . a firearm." A jury convicted Smith on all counts, which triggered the sentence enhancement. On appeal, Smith argued that the federal penalty for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense covers only situations in which the firearm is used as a weapon, not as a medium of exchange. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that the plain language of the penalty does not require that a firearm be used as a weapon, but that it applies to any use of a gun that facilitates, in any fashion, the perpetration of a drug offense. Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57374 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_259/argument None Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57310 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_166/argument None Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57302 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_351/argument A class of involuntarily committed mentally retarded persons brought suit against Kentucky in a Kentucky federal court challenging the constitutionality of the state's involuntary commitment procedures. The district court agreed that the procedures were unconstitutional and prevented the enforcement of the applicable statute. After multiple appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit instructed the state to amend its procedures. Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57283 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2079/argument None Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57324 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_621/argument None Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57399 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2045/argument None Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57373 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_114/argument Acting upon a belief that Cardinal Chemical ("Cardinal") violated two of its patents on chemical compounds used in polyvinyl chloride, Morton International ("Morton") challenged Cardinal's actions in a South Carolina District Court. Cardinal counterclaimed that Morton's patents were invalid. The District Court ruled that although none of Morton's patents were violated, they were both invalid. Morton appealed to the Federal Circuit Court which sustained the lower courts infringement finding but issued a per se reversal of its determination as to the validity of Morton's patents based on a practice dating back to 1987. Cardinal appealed the per se rejection of its validity counterclaim and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Wed, 03 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57289 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2019/argument On November 9, 1989, while exiting an apartment building with a history of cocaine trafficking, Timothy Dickerson spotted police officers and turned to walk in the opposite direction. In response, the officers commanded Dickerson to stop and proceeded to frisk him. An officer discovered a lump in Dickerson's jacket pocket, and, upon further tactile investigation, formed the belief that it was cocaine. The officer reached into Dickerson's pocket and confirmed that the lump was in fact a small bag of cocaine. Consequently, Dickerson was charged with possession of a controlled substance. He requested that the cocaine be excluded from evidence, but the trial court denied his request and he was found guilty. Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, and the State Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. Wed, 03 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57337 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1833/argument None Wed, 03 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57369 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_344/argument According to Executive Order No. 12807 signed by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, the Coast Guard was required to force the return of all passengers discovered illegally traveling by sea from Haiti to the United States before reaching its borders without determining whether they qualify as refugees. The Haitian Centers Council, Inc., a collection of organizations representing illegal Haitian aliens and Haitians detained at Guantanamo, requested that the District Court for the Eastern District of New York delay the implementation of the order. The council argued that the order violated section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and Article 33 of the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which protect individuals escaping potential prosecution from forced repatriation. The District Court denied the council's request, but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. Tue, 02 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57393 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1738/argument None Tue, 02 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57323 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2051/argument None Tue, 02 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57387 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1729/argument None Mon, 01 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57386 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_1/argument None Mon, 01 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57390 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_8199/argument Between January and April 1990, Thomas Lee Deal committed six bank robberies. In each robbery, he used a gun. Subsequently, Deal was convicted, in a single proceeding, of six counts of carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 USC section 924(c)(1). Section 924(c)(1) prescribes a 5-year prison term for the first such conviction, in addition to the punishment provided for the crime of violence, and requires a 20-year sentence "in the case of [a] second or subsequent conviction under this subsection." The District Court sentenced Deal to 5 years' imprisonment on the first section 924(c)(1) count and to 20 years on each of the five other counts, the terms to run consecutively. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Mon, 01 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57396 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_34/argument None Mon, 01 Mar 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57400 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2054/argument None Wed, 24 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57385 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2024/argument A New York law authorized schools to regulate the after-hour use of school property and facilities. The Center Moriches School District, acting under the statute, prohibited the use of its property by any religious group. The District refused repeated requests by Lamb's Chapel to use the school's facilities for an after-hours religious-oriented film series on family values and child rearing. The Chapel brought suit against the School District in federal court. Wed, 24 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57322 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_94/argument James Zobrest was deaf since birth. He attended public school through the eighth grade where the local school board provided a sign-language interpreter. Zobrest's parents elected to send their son to a Roman Catholic high school and requested that the local school board continue to provide their son with a sign-language interpreter. The school board denied the request on constitutional grounds. The Zobrests then filed suit, alleging that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the school district to provide the interpreter and that the Establishment Clause did not bar such relief. The District Court granted the school district summary judgment on the ground that the interpreter would act as a conduit for the child's religious inculcation, thereby promoting his religious development at government expense in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Wed, 24 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57297 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2003/argument From 1975 to 1985, the United States Government contracted with Williams Brothers Engineering Company (WBEC) to conduct the federal oil drilling in Kern County, California. By 1981, WBEC had accrued a state tax deficit of $14 million. After the Board of Equalization rejected WBEC's claim that those taxes were invalid, the company paid its deficit, and, according to WBEC's contract, was subsequently reimbursed by the United States Government. In January of 1988, WBEC continued to challenge the taxes by filing an action in state court. This action concluded with an agreement between the state of California and WBEC that the company receive a $3 million refund. The Federal Government filed a suit in the Eastern District of California in May of 1988, arguing that the remaining state taxes totaling $11 million were also illegitimate. The District Court ruled in favor of the state of California, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57311 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1111/argument Nineteen States and many private plaintiffs filed complaints alleging that the defendants -- domestic primary insurers, trade associations, and a reinsurance broker, along with London-based as well as domestic reinsurers -- violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, by engaging in various conspiracies aimed at forcing certain other primary insurers to change the terms of their standard domestic commercial general liability insurance policies. After the actions were consolidated for litigation, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the conduct alleged fell within the grant of antitrust immunity contained in Section 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1012(b), and that none of the conduct amounted to a "boycott" within the meaning of the Section 3(b), 15 U.S.C. Section 1013(b), exemption to that grant of immunity. The court of appeals reversed. Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57313 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2086/argument None Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57351 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7849/argument None Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57405 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1671/argument None Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57342 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1677/argument None Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57364 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1721/argument In 1984, the Minority Business Enterprise Participation ordinance was passed in Jacksonville, Florida which set aside 10 percent of the budget for city contracts to hire minority-owned businesses. On April 4, 1989, the Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, an association of individuals and companies that worked in construction in Jacksonville, filed an action against the city and its mayor in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court ruled in favor of the association, but when the city appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. The appellate court held that the association lacked standing to file the action because it did not demonstrate that one or more of its members would have received a reserved city contract but for the ordinance. Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57316 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1958/argument William McKinney, a Nevada state prisoner, sued his warden and several other prison officials for violating his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke. McKinney shared a cell with a man who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. He claimed that his health - both current and future - was being harmed by the smoke, and that the prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to the risk in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294. After a federal magistrate ruled that he did not have an Eighth Amendment right to a smoke- free environment and that he had failed to prove any "serious medical needs," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that he should have been given another opportunity to prove that the smoke levels were sufficient to constitute an unreasonable danger to his future health. Wed, 13 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57356 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_108_orig/argument None Wed, 13 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57383 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1600/argument None Wed, 13 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57279 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1526/argument Ferris Alexander was the owner of a chain of stores and theaters in Minnesota that distributed sexually explicit media. He was charged with violating federal obscenity laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The federal District Court in Minnesota found him guilty of both charges. The court ordered him to forfeit his businesses, sentenced him to a six-year prison term, and fined him $100,000. Alexander appealed, claiming that the confiscation of his stores for his dealings in obscene material amounted to 'prior restraint' on his subsequent distribution of adult materials, and therefore violated his First Amendment rights. He also claimed that the seizure of his business violated his Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment on the First Amendment claim, and declined to review the Eighth Amendment claim on the ground that no sentence less severe than life imprisonment without parole could justify an Eighth Amendment review. Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57365 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1657/argument None Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57284 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_790/argument None Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57331 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1353/argument None Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57349 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_5397/argument None Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57261 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1826/argument None Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57363 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_610/argument None Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57301 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1306/argument None Wed, 09 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57308 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_111_orig/argument None Wed, 09 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57367 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_261/argument None Wed, 09 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57360 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1618/argument None Tue, 08 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57281 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7873/argument None Tue, 08 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57346 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1513/argument None Tue, 08 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57298 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1229/argument None Mon, 07 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57270 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1538/argument None Mon, 07 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57345 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7749/argument None Mon, 07 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57334 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1594/argument None Mon, 07 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57277 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1300/argument None Wed, 02 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57380 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1231/argument None Wed, 02 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57398 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_794/argument None Wed, 02 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57352 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_904/argument None Tue, 01 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57333 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7358/argument Todd Brecht was charged with murder for shooting his brother-in-law. During his trial, he testified that the shooting was an accident. In addition to presenting other evidence, the prosecution pointed out his silence (both prior to his receiving the Miranda warnings and after) in an attempt to discredit his testimony. Brecht was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Brecht appealed, claiming that the prosecution's reference to his post-Miranda silence violated his right to due process according to Doyle v. Ohio. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, but the Supreme Court of Wisconsin reinstated it. They found that the mention of post-Miranda silence was impermissible under Doyle, but was also harmless error according to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard from Chapman v. California. Brecht sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The District Court upheld his Doyle claim and found that the violation was not harmless error under Chapman. Brecht's conviction was thus overturned again, only to be reinstated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit held that Chapman was not the appropriate standard under which to review Doyle error in federal habeas petitions. Rather than adhering to the Chapman standard, the court applied the Kotteakos v. United States test, which requires that the Doyle error have a "substantial and injurious effect" on the jury's verdict. Brecht's Doyle claim did not meet this standard, and the Seventh Circuit denied the writ. Tue, 01 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57327 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1496/argument None Tue, 01 Dec 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57294 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1695/argument None Mon, 30 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57290 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_522/argument None Mon, 30 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57340 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7804/argument None Mon, 30 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57269 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1521/argument None Mon, 30 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57275 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_10/argument None Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57287 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1160/argument None Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57272 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1135/argument None Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57371 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_6194/argument None Mon, 09 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57264 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1010/argument None Mon, 09 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57267 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1200/argument None Mon, 09 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57335 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1158/argument None Mon, 09 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57263 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_871/argument None Wed, 04 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57295 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_948/argument The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities. Wed, 04 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57288 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_6646/argument None Wed, 04 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57305 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1030/argument During his murder case, Robert Williams argued that statements he had made to police should be excluded. Some of those statements had been made before he was given his Miranda warnings and others, while made after the Miranda warnings had been given, were the direct product of those earlier, un- Mirandized statements and should also be excluded, he argued. The state trial court (and subsequently the appeals court) disagreed, and Williams was convicted. Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal District Court, arguing only that the claims made before the Miranda warnings were given should have been excluded. The court agreed but went further, ruling that the statements made after the Miranda warnings were inadmissible as well because they were the products of the earlier, un-Mirandized statements. On appeal, the state argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, which barred federal habeas corpus review of Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claims when the state had already given defendants a fair chance to raise such claims in state court, should also apply to questions regarding Fifth Amendment claims stemming from a failure to give Miranda warnings in a timely manner. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's grant of the petition, however, rejecting the state's argument. Tue, 03 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57353 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1326/argument None Tue, 03 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57276 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1393/argument None Tue, 03 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57304 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1421/argument None Mon, 02 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57404 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_6824/argument None Mon, 02 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57370 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1043/argument None Mon, 02 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57355 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1420/argument None Mon, 02 Nov 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57376 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_740/argument Walter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, was convicted of a felony, making false statements to a grand jury. The House of Representatives voted three articles of impeachment; impeachment in the Senate followed. In accordance with Senate Rule XI, a Senate committee heard the evidence and reported its findings. The full Senate convicted Nixon and sought to remove him from office. Nixon challenged Senate Rule XI in federal court on the ground that the rule violated the impeachment clause of the Constitution, which declares that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The lower courts deemed the issue nonjusticiable and declined to intervene in the dispute. Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57343 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7580/argument None Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57292 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_321/argument None Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57329 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_886/argument None Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57389 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7094/argument None Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57319 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_905/argument None Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57314 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_781/argument None Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57285 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_687/argument None Wed, 07 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57338 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_990/argument None Wed, 07 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57307 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_7328/argument None Wed, 07 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57395 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1188/argument None Tue, 06 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57391 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_946/argument None Tue, 06 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57361 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_767/argument None Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57397 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_6516/argument None Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57317 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_719/argument None Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57378 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_998/argument None Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:00:00 +0000 57325 at http://www.oyez.org