Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-17-2013
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA etal. v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 1271.Argued March 18, 2013Decided June 17, 2013 The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires States to accept and use a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg4(a)(1). That Federal Form, developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-03-2013
Maryland v. King NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MARYLAND v. KING certiorari to the court of appeals of maryland No. 12207.Argued February 26, 2013Decided June 3, 2013 After his 2009 arrest on first- and second-degree assault charges, respondent King was processed through a Wicomico County, Maryland, facility, where booking personnel used a cheek swab to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act (Act). The swab was matched to an unsolved 2003 rape, and King was charged with that crime. He moved to suppress the DNA match, arguing that the Act violated the Fourth Amendment, but the Circuit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-20-2013
Arlington v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CITY OF ARLINGTON, TEXAS, etal. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 111545.Argued January 16, 2013Decided May 20, 2013[ 1 ] The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires state or local governments to act on siting applications for wireless facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed. 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). Relying on its broad authority to implement the Communications Act, see 47 U.S.C. 201(b), the Federal Communicati...
Tag this Judgment!