59 share
40 is our goal
PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases offers expert analysis of the issues, background, and significance of every case slated for argument in the Supreme Court.
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
13-433 Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk
Whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act.
Whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act.
13-485 Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne
Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
- Brief for Petitioner, Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury
- Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioner
13-517 Warger v. Shauers
Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.
Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.
13-534 North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC
Whether, for purposes of the state-action exemption from federal antitrust law, an official state regulatory board created by state law may properly be treated as a "private" actor simply because, pursuant to state law, a majority of the board's members are also market participants who are elected to their official positions by other market participants.
Whether, for purposes of the state-action exemption from federal antitrust law, an official state regulatory board created by state law may properly be treated as a "private" actor simply because, pursuant to state law, a majority of the board's members are also market participants who are elected to their official positions by other market participants.
- Brief for the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, American Nurses Association, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American College of Nurse Midwives, National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists, and the Citizen Advocacy Center in Support of Respondent
- Brief for LegalZoom.Com, Inc., Responsive Law, Fileright llc, JustAnswer llc, Justia Company, Shake, Inc., and Law Professors in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato Institute in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Respondent, Federal Trade Commission
- Brief for Scholars of Public Choice Economics in Support of Respondent
- Brief for We All Help Patients, Inc. in Support of Respondent
13-604 Heien v. North Carolina
May a police officer's mistake of law provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?
May a police officer's mistake of law provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?
13-628 Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky v. John Kerry, Secretary of State
Is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the president's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him"?
Is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the president's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him"?
13-719 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC v. Brandon W. Owens
Must a defendant seeking removal to federal court include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is including the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
Must a defendant seeking removal to federal court include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is including the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
13-6827 Holt v. Hobbs
I. Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
II. Whether a ½ inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
III. Whether the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
IV. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided that the no beard grooming policy does not violate the RLUIPA, but this Court should decide the matter since it has not done so and should rule whether grooming policies of any Department of Correction that do not allow for a religious exception exemption are constitutional.
I. Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
II. Whether a ½ inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
III. Whether the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
IV. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided that the no beard grooming policy does not violate the RLUIPA, but this Court should decide the matter since it has not done so and should rule whether grooming policies of any Department of Correction that do not allow for a religious exception exemption are constitutional.
Scalia is the most dangerous person in the USA.
ReplyDeleteIf not Obama, I am kind of thinking the most dangerous man in the USA is . . . . . . . . . . ah . . . . . . . . . . you !!
Delete