|Gonzales v. Oregon
||546 U.S. 243 (2006)
||Attorney General did not permissibly construe Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the distribution of drugs for physician-assisted suicide
|Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
||546 U.S. 320 (2006)
||Invalidating statute and lower courts rendering narrower declaratory and injunctive relief
|Rice v. Collins
||546 U.S. 333 (2006)
||Habeas corpus relief may not be granted on the basis of debatable inferences used to overturn the trial court's finding vis-á-vis peremptory challenges
|Central Virginia Community College v. Katz
||546 U.S. 356 (2006)
||state sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment and the Bankruptcy Clause
|Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal
||546 U.S. 418 (2006)
||Federal government could not bar religious use of hallucinogenic tea
|Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
||546 U.S. 440 (2006)
||Arbitrator must decide legality of contract unless arbitration clause is itself being challenged
|Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald
||546 U.S. 470 (2006)
||agent of a party to a contract cannot state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because he himself does not have rights to make or enforce under the contract
|Dolan v. United States Postal Service
||546 U.S. 481 (2006)
||scope of immunity of the United States Postal Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act
|Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation
||546 U.S. 500 (2006)
||"Employee-numerosity" requirement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is substantive, rather than jurisdictional in nature
|Oregon v. Guzek
||546 U.S. 517 (2006)
||States may constitutionally limit the evidence of innocence a defendant convicted of a capital offense may present at his sentencing hearing to the evidence already presented at his trial.
|Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher
||547 U.S. 1 (2006)
||joint venture was not a price-fixing scheme under antitrust law
|Scheidler v. National Organization for Women
||547 U.S. 9 (2006)
||physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act
|Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
||547 U.S. 28 (2006)
||patented products involved in product tying arrangements are not presumed to have market power under antitrust law
|Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
||547 U.S. 47 (2006)
||law schools receiving federal funds may not ban military recruiters
|United States v. Grubbs
||547 U.S. 90 (2006)
||anticipatory search warrant did not violate the particularity clause of the 4th Amendment
|Georgia v. Randolph
||547 U.S. 103 (2006)
||police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant consents and the other objects
|Day v. McDonough
||547 U.S. 198 (2006)
||A State's unintentional failure to object to the filing of a habeas corpus petition after the statute of limitations has expired does not prevent a district court from dismissing the petition on its own initiative
|Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Chatham County
||547 U.S. 268 (2006)
||sovereign immunity does not apply to admiralty suit against county
|Jones v. Flowers
||547 U.S. 220 (2006)
||sufficiency of notice for tax sale
|Hartman v. Moore
||547 U.S. 250 (2006)
||A plaintiff in a retaliatory-prosecution action against federal officials must plead and show the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charges.
|Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ahlborn
||547 U.S. 268 (2006)
||state liens on personal injury settlements
|Marshall v. Marshall
||547 U.S. 293 (2006)
||federal bankruptcy court binding state court on inheritance question
|Holmes v. South Carolina
||547 U.S. 319 (2006)
||limitations on exclusion of evidence in murder case, 6th Amendment
|DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
||547 U.S. 332 (2006)
||taxpayer standing in a Dormant Commerce Clause case
|Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
||547 U.S. 356 (2006)
||fiduciary's recovery of personal injury settlement under ERISA
|eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
||547 U.S. 388 (2006)
||nature of patent injunctions - revisiting Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.
|S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env. Protection
||547 U.S. 370 (2006)
||interpreting scope of activities covered by the Clean Water Act
|Brigham City v. Stuart
||547 U.S. 398 (2006)
||reasonableness of officers' warrantless entry into a home to stop a fight under the "emergency aid exception"
|Garcetti v. Ceballos
||547 U.S. 410 (2006)
||extent of public employees' First Amendment right to free speech in the workplace
|Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
||547 U.S. 451 (2006)
||activities subject to RICO
|Zedner v. United States
||547 U.S. 489 (2006)
||a criminal defendant may not prospectively waive his rights under the Speedy Trial Act
|House v. Bell
||547 U.S. 518 (2006)
||Post-conviction DNA forensic evidence can be considered in death penalty appeals
|Hill v. McDonough
||547 U.S. 573 (2006)
||a challenge to lethal injection as violating the Eighth Amendment properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is not barred by previous habeas corpus petition
|Hudson v. Michigan
||547 U.S. 586 (2006)
||evidence obtained with a search warrant is admissible even when police violate 'knock-and-announce' rule
|Rapanos v. United States
||547 U.S. 715 (2006)
||whether wetlands are part of the "navigable waters of the United States" and thus regulated by the Clean Water Act
|Davis v. Washington
||547 U.S. 813 (2006)
||whether a 911 call is "testimonial" under Crawford v. Washington
|Samson v. California
||547 U.S. 843 (2006)
||evidence obtained in a suspicionless search of parolees is admissible, and not prohibited under the Fourth Amendment
|Dixon v. United States
||548 U.S. 1 (2006)
||burden of proof for duress as a defense to Federal firearms law violations
|Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
||548 U.S. 53 (2006)
||a job reassignment which is dirtier and more strenuous may constitute retaliatory discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as may a month of suspension without pay even when the employee receives back pay
|Woodford v. Ngo
||548 U.S. 81 (2006)
||the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies before an inmate can file a lawsuit
|United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
||548 U.S. 140 (2006)
||trial court's erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant's choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction
|Kansas v. Marsh
||548 U.S. 163 (2006)
||statute allowing the death penalty in cases where the aggravating and mitigating evidence are equal does not violate the Eighth Amendment
|Randall v. Sorrell
||548 U.S. 230 (2006)
||campaign finance laws which limit expenditures violate the First Amendment, and the anticorruption benefits of contribution limits must be weighed against their First Amendment costs
|Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy
||548 U.S. 291 (2006)
||The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not authorize the award of experts' fees to prevailing plaintiffs
|Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
||548 U.S. 331 (2006)
||informing a suspect of his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
|League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
||548 U.S. 399 (2006)
||Texas's 2003 redistricting of District 23 constituted a violation of Latinos' rights under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, however mid-decade redistricting is constitutional as long as it is not solely motivated by partisan gain
|Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
||548 U.S. 557 (2006)
||Guantanamo Bay detainees may not be tried by a military commission under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and said military commission violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, both of which apply to the detainees, in that accused and their counsels may be excluded from their trial and knowing what evidence has been put against them
|Clark v. Arizona
||548 U.S. 735 (2006)
||constitutionality of Arizona's insanity defense statute
|Lopez v. Gonzales
||549 U.S. 47 (2006)
||misdemeanor drug crimes as aggravated felonies
|Carey v. Musladin
||549 U.S. 70 (2006)
||spectator publicity and the right to a fair trial; "clearly established" law under the AEDPA
|BP America Production Co. v. Burton
||549 U.S. 84 (2007)
||Statute of limitations on contract actions by the Federal Government under 28 U.S.C. § 2415 is not applicable to administrative proceedings
|Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
||549 U.S. 118 (2007)
||enforceability of patents before infringement
|Cunningham v. California
||549 U.S. 270 (2007)
||applicability of Blakely v. Washington to California's determinate sentencing law
|Philip Morris USA v. Williams
||549 U.S. 346 (2007)
||constitutional limitations on punitive damages
|Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts
||549 U.S. 365 (2007)
||bad-faith exception to the right to convert Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a Chapter 13 case
|Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation
||549 U.S. 422 (2007)
||District Court may respond immediately to defendant's forum non conveniens motion before resolving jurisdictional or other threshold concerns
|Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
||549 U.S. 497 (2007)
||power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions
|Davenport v. Washington Education Association
||550 U.S. 117 (2007)
||A state may require that its public-sector unions receive authorization from nonmembers before spending their agency fees for election-related purposes
|Gonzales v. Carhart
||550 U.S. 124 (2007)
||Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
|James v. United States
||550 U.S. 192 (2007)
||attempted burglary as a predicate crime under the Armed Career Criminal Act
|Scott v. Harris
||550 U.S. 372 (2007)
||Fourth Amendment seizure in a high speed chase, qualified immunity
|KSR v. Teleflex
||550 U.S. 398 (2007)
||Patent law, nonobviousness
|Microsoft v. AT&T
||550 U.S. 437 (2007)
||copying software in a foreign country cannot violate U.S. patent law
|Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
||550 U.S. 618 (2007)
||statute of limitations on employment discrimination claims
|Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York
||551 U.S. 193 (2007)
||whether a municipality can sue other countries to collect unpaid taxes
|Bowles v. Russell
||551 U.S. 205 (2007)
||Federal Courts of Appeals lack jurisdiction to hear habeas appeals that are filed late, even if the district court said the petitioner had additional time to file
|Brendlin v. California
||551 U.S. 249 (2007)
||whether a passenger in an automobile is "detained" so that he may assert a Fourth Amendment violation stemming from the traffic stop itself
|Credit Suisse v. Billing
||551 U.S. 264 (2007)
||Whether Congress's creation of the SEC implicitly exempted regulated industries from antitrust lawsuits
|Rita v. United States
||551 U.S. 338 (2007)
||"reasonableness" of a federal prison sentence under United States v. Booker; continuing application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
|Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.
||551 U.S. 308 (2007)
||The proper standard for determining whether a plaintiff has alleged a "strong inference" of scienter under the PSLRA
|Morse v. Frederick
||551 U.S. 393 (2007)
||free speech rights of high school students ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus")
|CBOCS West v. Humphries
||551 U.S. 442 (2008)
||race retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
|Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
||551 U.S. 449 (2007)
||Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restriction on issue ads in election campaigns
|Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
||551 U.S. 587 (2007)
||taxpayer standing to pursue an Establishment Clause claim against President Bush's faith-based initiative
|Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (companion case)
|551 U.S. 701 (2007)
||affirmative action; using race as a tie-breaker in assigning students to public schools
|Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
||551 U.S. 877 (2007)
||applying rule of reason under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
|Panetti v. Quarterman
||551 U.S. 930 (2007)
||executing the mentally ill
|Crawford v. Nashville
||Employees who cooperate with an internal investigation of alleged sexual harassment are protected against retaliation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
|Van de Kamp v. Goldstein
||Prosecutors are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for improperly supervising the disclosures made by line prosecutors pursuant to Brady v. Maryland.
|United States v. Hayes
||Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), people who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes may not possess firearms as long as the government proves that the underlying offense involved a domestic relationship.
|Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
||A municipality that allows a privately donated Ten Commandments monument to be displayed on public property need not permit the religion of Summum to put up its own statue of similar size.
|Negusie v. Mukasey
||Under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Board of Immigration Appeals (rather than a federal court) has the power to decide whether the so-called "persecutor bar" applies to asylum applicants applies to those who were forced to persecute others in their home country.
|Wyeth v. Levine
||Federal drug labeling requirements do not preempt state drug labeling requirements enacted to ensure that the public knew certain drugs are safe.
|Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee
||The petitioner parents had the right to sue a school committee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to stop the sexual harassment their daughter endured. This decision reversed the Second Circuit's holding that Title IX provided the sole remedy the parents could seek.
|14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett
||An employer and a union can agree, through a collective bargaining agreement, that the unionized employees must resolve discrimination claims in arbitration instead of court.
|Harbison v. Bell
||Under 18 U.S.C. § 3599, the federal government must provide lawyers to death row inmates seeking clemency in state proceedings.
|Entergy v. Riverkeeper
||The Clean Water Act does not prevent the EPA from engaging in a cost-benefit analysis when setting standards for power plants that use large quantities of water for cooling.
|Arizona v. Gant
||Police power to search an arrested person's vehicle is limited to safety concerns and evidence related to the actual arrest.
|FCC v. Fox Television Stations
||The FCC may ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts.
|Cone v. Bell
||The petitioner death row inmate had not forfeited the opportunity to argue that prosecutors withheld evidence important to his defense.
|Dean v. United States
||Upheld sentence for discharging a firearm during a violent crime, Congress intended a defendant to be held strictly liable for such an offense.
|Flores-Figueroa v. United States
||whether the law enhancing the sentence for identity theft requires proof that an individual knew that the identity card or number he had used belonged to another, actual person
|AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen
||The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act is not retroactive, so maternity leave taken before it passed cannot be considered in calculating employee pension benefits.
|Ashcroft v. Iqbal
||whether top government officials can be held personally liable for allegedly knowing or condoning of racial and religious mistreatment of suspected terrorists
|Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.
||Due process requirements for judges' recusal
|United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York
||Where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must filed an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
|District Attorney's Office v. Osborne
||Found no due process, postconviction right to access to the state's evidence for DNA testing.
|Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey
||whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which gives the U.S. government authority to oversee state electoral-law changes, is no longer needed and is unconstitutional
|Safford Unified School District v. Redding
||Strip search of a middle schooler violated the Fourth Amendment where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear.
|Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
||Under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, the prosecution (if it plans to present a lab report as evidence in a criminal trial) must make the analyst who prepared it available for on-demand cross-examination by defense counsel.
|Ricci v. DeStefano
||White firefighters in New Haven suffered unfair discrimination because of their race when the city scrapped the results of a promotional exam.
|Lefemine v. Wideman
||Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a plaintiff who obtained only a permanent injunction against government officials (but no money damages) was a "prevailing party," so the government must pay his attorney fees.
|United States v. Bormes
||The Little Tucker Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity with respect to Fair Credit Reporting Act damages actions.
|Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC v. Howard
||The Oklahoma Supreme Court was wrong in preventing arbitration of a dispute over the scope of noncompete agreements in employment contracts.
|Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
||Repeated, temporary flooding caused by the government is not automatically exempt from the Takings Clause, so the case was remanded for the lower court to decide if the government has to pay owners for using their land.
|Kloeckner v. Solis
||A federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board violates an antidiscrimination statute listed in 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1) should seek judicial review in district court, not the Federal Circuit, regardless whether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or on the merits.
|Ryan v. Valencia Gonzales
Tibbals v. Carter (companion case)
||The federal law at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 3599, does not provide a state prisoner with the right to suspend his federal habeas proceedings when he is adjudged incompetent.
|Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
||The flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a “discharge of a pollutant” under the Clean Water Act.
|Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.
||Nike's irrevocable promise not to enforce its trademark against its competitor mooted the competitor's lawsuit to invalidate the trademark.
|Smith v. United States
||A defendant bears the burden of proving a defense of withdrawal from conspiracy.
|Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida
||Petitioner's floating home was not a "vessel" for purposes of 1 U.S.C. § 3, and therefore federal maritime jurisdiction was not triggered, because -- except for the fact that it floats -- nothing about it suggested that it was intended to transport people or things over water.
|Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center
||The 180-day statutory time limit for a hospital to appeal a final Medicare reimbursement is not "jurisdictional," but it is also not subject to equitable tolling.
|Chafin v. Chafin
||The return of a child to a foreign country pursuant to an order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction does not render an appeal of that order moot; that is, the losing party can still appeal.
|Bailey v. United States
||In Michigan v. Summers, the Supreme Court held that police officers executing a search warrant were allowed to detain people on the premises while they conducted the search. This case limits that to the "immediate vicinity" of the place being searched, so police searching a basement apartment couldn't search a man leaving from near the apartment in a car.
|FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.
||The state of Georgia was not immune from an antitrust lawsuit challenging the competition-reducing acquisitions of a state-owned hospital.
|Florida v. Harris
||Because the police provided evidence showing the dog did well at training, a dog sniff provided probable cause for a search of a vehicle.
|Gunn v. Minton
||The federal law giving federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), does not deprive state courts of the authority to hear a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in an underlying patent case.
|Henderson v. United States
||Regardless whether a legal question was settled or unsettled at the time of trial, an error is “plain” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) so long as the error was plain at the time of appellate review.
|Johnson v. Williams
||Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court hearing a habeas petition from a state prisoner must presume that the state court decided the prisoner's federal claim on the merits, even if the state court did not expressly address that federal claim.
|Evans v. Michigan
||The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial following a court-directed acquittal, even if the acquittal was erroneous.
|Chaidez v. United States
||The Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform criminal defendants of the deportation risks of guilty pleas, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review (that is, non-habeas appeals).
|Marx v. General Revenue Corp.
||Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), a prevailing defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit may be awarded costs even where the lawsuit was not brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.
|Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
||Petitioners, a group of journalists and lawyers, did not have standing to challenge a federal law expanding the government's ability to engage in secret wiretapping because they could not prove they had been, or were about to be, wiretapped.
|Gabelli v. SEC
||The five-year statute of limitations for the SEC to bring a civil suit seeking penalties for securities fraud against investment advisers begins to tick when the fraud occurs, not when it is discovered.
|Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
||In a private securities fraud class action, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and an SEC rule, plaintiff class members do not need to prove that the fraud was "material" to their purchase of the securities.
|Levin v. United States
||The Gonzalez Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089(e), waives some of the government's immunity, and so allowed a plaintiff to sue the United States for alleged medical battery inflicted by a Navy doctor during a cataracts surgery.
|Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
||The first-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works made lawfully overseas.
|Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles
||Class representative of plaintiff class cannot defeat federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act by stipulating that he will seek less than $5 million in damages. His stipulation does not bind the rest of the class.
|Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center
||The Clean Water Act does not require a permit before channeled stormwater runoff from logging roads can be discharged into rivers and other bodies of water. Reversing the Ninth Circuit, the Court held that the lawsuit was not barred, but that the EPA's interpretation of its own regulation (not requiring permits) was entitled to deference.
|Wos v. E.M.A.
||A part of the federal Medicaid statute known as the "anti-lien provision" preempted a North Carolina law. That state law had required Medicaid beneficiaries who received money from a tort judgment or settlement to give one-third of that money to the state to reimburse it for the free medical care it had provided to the person.
|Florida v. Jardines
||A dog sniff at the front door of a house constitutes a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
|Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
||The Third Circuit improperly certified a class action against cable company Comcast under Rule 23(b). The damages model the class proposed was not adequate.
|Millbrook v. United States
||The petitioner, a prisoner, was raped by federal prison guards. The so-called "law enforcement proviso" of the Federal Tort Claims Act allowed the petitioner to sue the federal government for the guards' conduct.
|Marshall v. Rodgers
||The petitioner, convicted in state court of gun-related crimes, claimed the courts had violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by declining to appoint him a lawyer to assist him in filing a motion for a new trial, though he had waived this right three times already. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the petitioner, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
|Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk
||A nurse brought a collective action against her former employer for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The employer offered the nurse a settlement under Rule 68 for her own damages, but not those of other potential class members. The Supreme Court held that the offer mooted her claim.
|US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen
||The terms of an ERISA plan governed when an ERISA claim was brought under the statutory provision authorizing "appropriate equitable relief . . . to enforce . . . the terms of the” plan. But when there are gaps in the plan, equitable doctrines may be used to construe it.
|Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
||The Court unanimously agreed (albeit for different reasons) that the Alien Tort Statute did not allow a foreign citizen to sue a foreign corporation in an American court for aiding and abetting the commission of human rights abuses on foreign soil.
|Missouri v. McNeely
||In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.
|Moncrieffe v. Holder
||If a noncitizen’s conviction for a marijuana distribution offense fails to establish that the offense involved either payment or more than a small amount of marijuana, it is not an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
|McBurney v. Young
||Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, which grants Virginia citizens access to all public records, but grants no such right to non-Virginians, violates neither the Privileges and Immunities Clause nor the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
|Boyer v. Louisiana
||A majority of the Supreme Court dismissed this writ of certiorari as "improvidently granted." The question presented had been: Under the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial guarantee, if delay in a criminal defendant’s trial is caused by inadequate state funding for indigent defense counsel, should that delay be counted against the State? Because this case was dismissed, the answer (from Vermont v. Brillion) remains "yes, but not much."