Legal Cases

The Constitution forbids the use of visible shackles during the penalty phase of a capital case, as it does during the guilt phase, unless justified by an essential state interest specific to the defendant on trial, such as courtroom security.

A federal court in a diversity action may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs whose claims do not meet the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as at least one named plaintiff satisfies that requirement and the claims are part of the same case or controversy.

The suppression of evidence favorable to the defense, as established in Brady v. Maryland, constitutes a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, and such evidence must be disclosed to ensure a fair trial.

The violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule does not require the suppression of evidence obtained during a search conducted pursuant to a valid warrant.

The Supreme Court held that the "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance used in sentencing was not unconstitutionally vague, and thus the state court's findings were entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Oklahoma's semiclosed primary system, which allows only registered party members and Independents to vote in a party's primary, does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of political association. States have broad authority to regulate the manner of elections, including the structure of their primary systems.

An individual may not enforce the limitations on local zoning authority set forth in §332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 through an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

An anticipatory search warrant is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is supported by probable cause and describes the triggering condition that must occur before the warrant is executed, but it is not required to include the triggering condition in the warrant itself.

Title I of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) preempts state-law class action claims alleging misrepresentation or omission of material facts in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities, regardless of whether federal law provides a private remedy for those claims.

The period for the 1-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. §2255 begins when a petitioner receives notice of the order vacating a prior conviction used to enhance their federal sentence, provided that the petitioner has pursued the vacatur with due diligence in state court.

Even when a capital defendant's family members and the defendant himself suggest that no mitigating evidence is available, defense counsel is required by the Sixth Amendment to make reasonable efforts to obtain and review material that the prosecution will likely use as evidence of aggravation during the sentencing phase of trial.

Before a state can take property and sell it for unpaid taxes, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to take additional reasonable steps to provide notice when a mailed notice is returned undelivered.

A federal district court has the discretion to stay a mixed petition for habeas corpus to allow a petitioner to exhaust unexhausted claims in state court before returning to federal court for review.

A private plaintiff claiming securities fraud must prove that the defendant's fraud caused an economic loss, and cannot satisfy this requirement merely by alleging that the security's price was inflated at the time of purchase due to misrepresentation.

The numerical threshold of having "fifteen or more employees" in Title VII's definition of "employer" does not affect federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction but instead relates to the substantive adequacy of a Title VII claim for relief, and thus cannot be raised as a defense late in the litigation.

The Supreme Court held that the longstanding rule established in Totten v. United States prohibits suits against the government based on covert espionage agreements, thereby reversing the lower courts' decisions that allowed the respondents' claims to proceed.

The Oneida Indian Nation cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over lands purchased in an open market, as they have long relinquished governmental authority, and such a revival would disrupt the established governance of local municipalities.

In a Bivens action alleging retaliation for speech, a plaintiff must allege and prove the absence of probable cause to support the underlying criminal charge in order to state an actionable violation of the First Amendment.

A lawful, economically integrated joint venture is not per se illegal under §1 of the Sherman Act for setting the prices at which the joint venture sells its products.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pre-empts state-law claims for damages that would impose labeling or packaging requirements different from those mandated by FIFRA, as such claims would induce a manufacturer to alter its product label.