Legal Cases

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) allows for recovery under a "disparate-impact" theory of discrimination, similar to that established in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., but the plaintiffs must still demonstrate a valid disparate-impact claim to succeed.

The phrase "convicted in any court" in the context of the unlawful gun possession statute encompasses only domestic convictions and does not include foreign convictions.

Conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 encompasses claims of retaliation against individuals who complain about sex discrimination in educational programs, thereby allowing for a private right of action in such cases.

Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, even when such activities are permitted by state law.

The doctrine of transferred intent is a permissible theory for aggravated felony murder under Ohio law, and a state court's interpretation of state law binds federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that the United States may offset Social Security benefits to collect student loan debts that are over 10 years old, as the Debt Collection Improvement Act allows for such offsets despite the protections generally afforded to Social Security benefits under the Social Security Act.

Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for an equal protection challenge to a policy of racially segregating prisoners in California's reception centers, as such segregation based on race is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.

A dredge is considered a "vessel" under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), allowing individuals injured while working on such a vessel to pursue claims under the Act.

When a litigant's recovery constitutes income, the portion of that recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee is included in the litigant's gross income under the Internal Revenue Code.

The use of a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment, provided that the stop is not unreasonably prolonged beyond the time necessary to complete the mission of issuing a warning ticket.

The Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit's decision granting habeas relief was contrary to the limits on federal habeas review imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), affirming that the jury instructions in the penalty phase of Payton's trial were not constitutionally deficient and did not prevent the jury from considering all relevant mitigation evidence.

The procedures adopted by Ohio for classifying prisoners and assigning them to its Supermax facility comply with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.

One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

The Federal Communications Commission's determination that cable companies providing broadband Internet service do not qualify as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the Communications Act, and thus are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation, is a lawful construction of the Act under the Chevron deference standard.

Federal courts cannot create an exception to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. §1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, thereby affirming that state court decisions on takings claims must be respected in federal court.

The limitation period for filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 begins to run on the date the Supreme Court initially recognizes the right asserted, rather than the date the right is made retroactively applicable.

A permanent injunction that prohibits all future speech about an admitted public figure, in the context of a defamation action, violates the First Amendment.

The display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as it serves a valid secular purpose and does not convey an endorsement of religion to a reasonable observer.

The display of the Ten Commandments in public courthouses violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if the primary purpose of the display is to promote a religious message, rather than a secular purpose. The evolution of the display and the intent behind it are critical factors in determining its constitutionality.