Cases by Issue - Civil Rights

Porter v. Nussle

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-853

Petitioner

Porter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nussle

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

534 U.S. 516 (2002)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 2002

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

Advocates

Richard Blumenthal (Hartford, Connecticut, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Irving L. Gornstein (Assistant to the Solicitor General, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporti)

John R. Williams (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

In 1999, Ronald Nussle, an inmate at the Cheshire Correctional Institution in Connecticut, filed a federal action under 42 USC section 1983, charging that certain correction officers had subjected him to a sustained pattern of harassment and intimidation and had singled him out for a severe beating in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In doing so, Nussle did not file a grievance under the applicable Connecticut Department of Correction procedures. Based on the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), the District Court dismissed the suit, finding that PLRA directs that "No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983...or any other Federal law, by a prisoner...until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for a claim of the kind Nussle asserted. Citing legislative history, the appellate court found that the phrase "prisons conditions" covers only conditions affecting prisoners generally, not single incidents that immediately affect only particular prisoners.

Question

Does the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 require that all prisoners seeking redress for prison circumstances or occurrences exhaust any applicable administrative remedies before filing suit?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Porter, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 1997

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. The Court rejected Nussle's argument that Congress added the words "prison conditions" to exempt excessive force claims. Justice Ginsburg wrote that the Court's precedents and the act's "dominant concern to promote administrative redress, filter out groundless claims, and foster better prepared litigation of claims aired in court" persuade the Court "strongly away from classifying suits about prison guards' use of excessive force, one or many times, as anything other than actions 'with respect to prison conditions.'"

Bush v. Gore

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:31 +0000

Location

Florida Supreme Court

500 South Duval Street Tallahassee FL 32399

Tallahassee, FL 32399

United States

30° 26' 17.214" N, 84° 16' 59.1672" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-949

Petitioner

George W. Bush

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Albert Gore

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 2000

Decided

Tuesday, December 12, 2000

Advocates

David Boies (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Joseph P. Klock (Argued the cause for petitioner Harris)

Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for petitioner Bush)

Facts of the Case

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.

Question

Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?

Conclusion

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

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held, 5 to 4, that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5).

Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.

National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-688

Petitioner

National Private Truck Council, Inc., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oklahoma Tax Commission et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

515 U.S. 582 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1995

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1995

Advocates

Stanley P. Johnston (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard A. Allen (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Oklahoma Tax Commission, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Growe, Secretary Of State Of Minnesota v. Emison

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:00:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1420

Appellee

Emison et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Growe, Secretary Of State Of Minnesota, et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 25 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Advocates

John R. Tunheim (on behalf of the Appellants)

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae supporting Appellants)

Bruce Donald Willis (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Growe, Secretary Of State Of Minnesota, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Ford v. Georgia

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-6796

Petitioner

Ford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Georgia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

498 U.S. 411 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, November 6, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1991

Advocates

Paula K. Smith (on behalf of the Respondent)

Charles J. Ogletree, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Patsy v. Florida Board Of Regents

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1874

Petitioner

Patsy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida Board Of Regents

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 496 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

Charles S. Sims (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Mitchell D. Franks (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Patsy, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Juidice v. Vail

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1397

Appellee

Vail

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Juidice

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

430 U.S. 327 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, November 30, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Juidice, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Rizzo v. Goode

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-942

Petitioner

Rizzo

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Goode

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 362 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, November 11, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rizzo, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Johnson v. Mississippi

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1531

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 213 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 12, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mississippi, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1443

None

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-296

Appellee

Pursue, Ltd.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Huffman

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 592 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Huffman, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Harris County Comm'rs Court v. Moore

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1475

Appellee

Moore

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harris County Comm'rs Court

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 77 (1975)

Argued

Monday, November 11, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Harris County Comm'rs Court, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

O'shea v. Littleton

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-953

Petitioner

O'shea

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Littleton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 488 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, October 17, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Glover v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Glover

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

St. Louis-S. F. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 324 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Glover, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Greenwood v. Peacock

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

471

Petitioner

Greenwood

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Peacock

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 649

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 808 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Greenwood, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1443

None

Georgia v. Rachel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:43:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

147

Petitioner

Georgia

Respondent

Rachel

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 780 (1966)

Argued

April 25-26, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rachel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1443

None

Harman v. Forssenius

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

360

Appellee

Forssenius

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harman

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 528 (1965)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1965

Decided

Tuesday, April 27, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Harman, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 24: Twenty-Fourth Amendment

None

Harrison v. N. A. A. C. P.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

127

Appellee

N. A. A. C. P.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Harrison

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 167 (1959)

Argued

March 23-24, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Harrison, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None