Supreme Court - Sliplists, 546 U. S., Part 2

546 U. S., Part 2

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R018; No. 04-623; 1/17/06. The Controlled Substances Act does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure.

Wachovia Bank, N. A. v. Schmidt,, 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R019; No. 04-1186; 1/17/06. For purposes of 28 U. S. C. �48, which provides that "national banking associations" are "deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located" for diversity purposes, a national bank is a citizen of the State where its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng.,, 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R020; No. 04-1144; 1/18/06. If enforcing a statute that regulates access to abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.

Rice v. Collins,, 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R021; No. 04-52; 1/18/06. The Ninth Circuit's attempt to use a set of debatable inferences to set aside a reasonable state-court conclusion does not satisfy the requirements for granting habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Will v. Hallock,, 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R022; No. 04-1332; 1/18/06. A refusal to apply the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar, 28 U. S. C. �76, is not open to appeal under the collateral order doctrine.

Central Va. Community College v. Katz, 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R023; No. 04-885; 1/23/06. A bankruptcy trustee抯 proceeding to set aside the debtor抯 preferential transfers to state agencies is not barred by sovereign immunity.

Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R024; No. 04-597; 1/23/06. Because respondent failed to renew, after trial, its preverdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, as specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), the Federal Circuit had no basis for reviewing respondent抯 sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the verdict.

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm抧, 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R025; No. 04-1581; 1/23/06. The District Court抯 judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for that court to consider in the first instance the merits of appellant抯 as-applied challenge to the application to it of �3 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

Alaska v. United States, 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R026; No. 128, Orig.; 1/23/06. The joint motion for entry of decree is granted, the proposed decree is entered, and the Special Master is discharged.

Gonzales v. O Centro Esp韗ita Beneficente Uni鉶 do Vegetal, 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R027; No. 04-1084; 2/21/06. The courts below did not err in determining that the Federal Government failed to demonstrate, at the preliminary injunction stage, the compelling interest required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 in order to bar respondent church's sacramental use of a tea containing a hallucinogen listed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R028; No. 04-1264; 2/21/06. Regardless of whether it is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of a contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it, must be resolved by the arbitrator, not by the court.

Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi, 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R029; No. 04-1095; 2/21/06. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for the Ninth Circuit to consider whether Iran's Ministry of Defense is an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign state whose property is "not . . . immune from attachment" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 or if it is an inseparable part of the foreign state itself.

Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R030; No. 05-379; 2/21/06. The Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that modifiers or qualifications are necessary in all instances to render the term "boy" probative of bias in an employment discrimination case based on race, and in articulating the standard for determining whether the asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for Tyson's hiring decisions in this case were pretextual.

Lance v. Dennis, 546 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R031; No. 05-555; 2/21/06. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine-which prevents lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by "state-court losers" challenging "state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced," Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U. S. 280, 284-does not bar actions by nonparties to the earlier state-court judgment simply because, for purposes of preclusion law, they could be considered in privity with a party to that judgment.

Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R032; No. 04-593; 2/22/06. Consistent with this Court's case law, and as required by the plain text of 42 U. S. C. �81, a plaintiff cannot state a �81 claim unless he has (or would have) rights under the existing (or proposed) contract that he wishes "to make and enforce."

Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R033; No. 04-848; 2/22/06. Dolan's claim against the Postal Service is not barred by an exception for the "negligent transmission of . . . postal matter" to the Federal Tort Claims Act's general waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and thus her suit may proceed.

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R034; No. 04-944; 2/22/06. The 15-employee requirement contained in the "employer" definition of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not affect federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction but, instead, delineates a substantive ingredient of a Title VII claim for relief.

Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U. S. ___ (2006)

R035; No. 04-928; 2/22/06. The Constitution does not prohibit a State from limiting the innocence-related evidence a capital defendant can introduce at a sentencing proceeding to the evidence introduced at the original trial.

Search Tip: Use the binocular icons to search within PDF documents.

(To view PDF files) Adobe Access PDF to HTML conversion

Last Updated: February 22, 2006
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s546pt1.html