Moore v. United States, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2008) (per curiam)
R001; No. 07-10689; 10/14/08. In light of the District Court’s comments indicating it lacked
discretion to impose a sentence below that suggested by the United States Sentencing Guidelines for
Moore’s conviction of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, the Eighth Circuit should
have remanded the case for resentencing under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. ___, ___, in which
this Court concluded that a sentencing judge may consider the disparity between the Guidelines’
treatment of similar amounts of crack and powder cocaine.
|
Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2008) (per curiam)
R002; No. 08A332; 10/17/08. Because respondent Ohio Republicans are not sufficiently
likely to prevail on the question whether private litigants may bring an action to enforce §303 of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 to justify the District Court’s issuance of a temporary restraining
order directing petitioner Ohio Secretary of State to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter Registration
Database to comply with §303, this Court grants the secretary’s application for a stay and vacates
the TRO.
|
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2008)
R003; No. 07-1239; 11/12/08. The preliminary injunction restricting the Navy’s use of “mid-frequency
active” sonar during training exercises is vacated to the extent challenged by the Navy, whose need to
conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly
outweighs plaintiff environmentalists’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine
mammals.
|
Bell v. Kelly, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2008) (per curiam)
R004; No. 07-1223; 11/17/08. Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
|
Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2008) (per curiam)
R005; No. 07-544; 12/2/08. This habeas case is remanded for a determination whether a flaw in the jury
instructions at respondent’s criminal trial “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in
determining the jury’s verdict,” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623.
|
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2008)
R006; No. 07-562; 12/15/08. Neither the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act’s pre-emption
provision nor the Federal Trade Commission’s actions in this field pre-empt respondents’ state-law fraud
claim, which alleges that petitioners fraudulently advertised their “light” cigarettes as less harmful
than regular cigarettes.
|
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R007; No. 07-6984; 1/13/09. Where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an
out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought
federal habeas relief, his judgment is not “final” for purposes of 38 U. S. C. §2244(d)(1)(A)—which
sets a 1-year time limitation for a state prisoner to file a federal habeas petition—until the
conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal, or the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari
review of that appeal in this Court.
|
Chambers v. United States, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R008; No. 06-11206; 1/13/09. Illinois’ crime of failure to report for penal confinement is not
a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U. S. C. §924(e), which provides
a 15-year mandatory minimum prison term for a defendant, convicted of possessing a firearm, who has
three prior convictions “for a violent felony,” defined as a crime that, inter alia, “involves conduct
that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” §924(e)(2)(b)(ii).
|
Herring v. United States, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R009; No. 07-513; 1/14/09. The exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence
seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment where police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are
the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search rather than systemic error or disregard
of constitutional requirements.
|
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R010; No. 07-901; 1/14/09. In light of historical practice and the States' authority
over administration of their criminal justice systems, the Sixth Amendment's jury-trial
guarantee, as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, does not inhibit States from assigning
to judges, rather than to juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive,
rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.
|
Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R011; No. 07-772; 1/21/09. Because the Washington state court's decision rejecting
Sarausad's argument that the accomplice-liability instructions given at his murder trial were
ambiguous and likely misinterpreted by the jury "did not result in an "unreasonable
application of . . . clearly established Federal law," 28 U. S. C.
§2254(d)(1), the Ninth Circuit erred in granting Sarausad habeas relief.
|
Locke v. Karass, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R012; No. 07-610; 1/21/09. Under this Court's precedent, the First Amendment permits a
local union to charge nonmembers for the litigation expenses of its national organization as long as
(1) the subject matter of the (extra-local) litigation is of a kind that would be chargeable if the
litigation were local, e.g., litigation appropriately related to collective bargaining rather
than political activities, and (2) the litigation charge is reciprocal in nature, i.e., the
contributing local reasonably expects other locals to contribute similarly to the national's
resources used for costs of similar litigation on behalf of the contributing local if and when it
takes place.
|
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R013; No. 07-751; 1/21/09. The two-step procedure for resolving government officials'
qualified immunity claims that was mandated by Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194,
should no longer be regarded as an inflexible requirement; the lower federal courts should have the
discretion to decide whether that procedure is worthwhile in particular cases.
|
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Comm., 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R014; No. 07-1125; 1/21/09. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does not preclude an action
under 42 U. S. C. §1983 alleging gender discrimination in schools in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause.
|
Spears v. United States, 555 U. S. 1 ___ (2009)
R015; No. 08-5721; 1/21/09. The Eighth Circuit order requiring petitioner's resentencing
based on the District Court's categorical rejection of the United States Sentencing Guidelines'
100:1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio and substitution of its own 20:1 ratio conflicts with
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. ___ (2007), which recognized district
courts' authority to vary from the crack Guidelines based solely on a policy disagreement with them,
and not simply on an individualized determination that they yield an excessive sentence in a particular
case.
|