Us Supreme Court Court June 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mitchell Vs. Helms
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Mitchell v. Helms - 530 U.S. 793 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus MITCHELL ET AL. v. HELMS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1648. Argued December 1, 1999-Decided June 28, 2000 Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 channels federal funds via state educational agencies (SEA's) to local educational agencies (LEA's), which in turn lend educational materials and equipment, such as library and media materials and computer software and hardware, to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement "secular, neutral, and nonideological" programs. The enrollment of each participating school determines the amount of Chapter 2 aid that it receives. In an average year, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, are allocated for private schools, most of which are Catholic or otherwise religiously affiliated. Respondents filed suit alleging, among other things, that C...
Hill Vs. Colorado
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Hill v. Colorado - 530 U.S. 703 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus HILL ET AL. v. COLORADO ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO No. 98-1856. Argued January 19, 2000-Decided June 28, 2000 Colorado Rev. Stat. 18-9-122(3) makes it unlawful for any person within 100 feet of a health care facility's entrance to "knowingly approach" within 8 feet of another person, without that person's consent, in order to pass "a leaflet or handbill to, displa[y] a sign to, or engag[e] in oral protest, education, or counseling with [that] person .... " Claiming that the statute was facially invalid, petitioners sought to enjoin its enforcement in state court. In dismissing the complaint, the District Judge held that the statute imposed content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest under Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781 , in that Colorado had not "adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement ...
Boy Scouts of America Vs. Dale
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale - 530 U.S. 640 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ET AL. v. DALE CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY No. 99-699. Argued April 26, 2000-Decided June 28, 2000 Petitioners are the Boy Scouts of America and its Monmouth Council (collectively, Boy Scouts). The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people. It asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with those values. Respondent Dale is an adult whose position as assistant scoutmaster of a New Jersey troop was revoked when the Boy Scouts learned that he is an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist. He filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, alleging, inter alia, that the Boy Scouts had violated the state statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. That court's Chancery Division granted summary judgment for the Boy Scouts, but its ...
Stenberg Vs. Carhart
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Stenberg v. Carhart - 530 U.S. 914 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus STENBERG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, ET AL. v. CARHART CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 99-830. Argued April 25, 2000-Decided June 28, 2000 The Constitution offers basic protection to a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 ; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 . Before fetal viability, a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, id., at 870 (plurality opinion), and a state law is unconstitutional if it imposes on the woman's decision an "undue burden," i. e., if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the woman's path, id., at 877. Postviability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where "necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the [moth...
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - 530 U.S. 604 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING SOUTHEAST, INC. v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 99-244. Argued March 22, 2000-Decided June 26, 2000* Two oil companies, petitioners here, paid the Government $156 million in return for lease contracts giving them the rights to explore for and develop oil off the North Carolina coast, provided that the companies received exploration and development permission in accordance with procedures set out in, inter alia, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), and regulations promulgated pursuant to those Acts. OCSLA, among other things, requires the Department of the Interior to approve a company's Plan of Exploration (Plan) within 30 days of its submission if the Plan meets certain criteria. A company must also obtain a...
California Democratic Party Vs. Jones
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
California Democratic Party v. Jones - 530 U.S. 567 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY ET AL. v. JONES, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 99-401. Argued April 24, 2000-Decided June 26, 2000 One way that candidates for public office in California gain access to the general ballot is by winning a qualified political party's primary. In 1996, Proposition 198 changed the State's partisan primary from a closed primary, in which only a political party's members can vote on its nominees, to a blanket primary, in which each voter's ballot lists every candidate regardless of party affiliation and allows the voter to choose freely among them. The candidate of each party who wins the most votes is that party's nominee for the general election. Each of petitioner political parties prohibits nonmembers from voting in the party's primary. They filed suit against respondent state off...
Dickerson Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Dickerson v. United States - 530 U.S. 428 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-5525. Argued April 19, 2000-Decided June 26, 2000 In the wake of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , in which the Court held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect's statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence, id., at 479, Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. 3501, which in essence makes the admissibility of such statements turn solely on whether they were made voluntarily. Petitioner, under indictment for bank robbery and related federal crimes, moved to suppress a statement he had made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on the ground he had not received "Miranda warnings" before being interrogated. The District Court granted his motion, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal. In reversing, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that petitio...
Apprendi Vs. New Jersey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Apprendi v. New Jersey - 530 U.S. 466 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY No. 99-478. Argued March 28, 2000-Decided June 26, 2000 Petitioner Apprendi fired several shots into the home of an MricanAmerican family and made a statement-which he later retracted-that he did not want the family in his neighborhood because of their race. He was charged under New Jersey law with, inter alia, second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, which carries a prison term of 5 to lO years. The count did not refer to the State's hate crime statute, which provides for an enhanced sentence if a trial judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the crime with a purpose to intimidate a person or group because of, inter alia, race. Mter Apprendi pleaded guilty, the prosecutor filed a motion to enhance the sentence. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the sho...
Arizona Vs. California
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Arizona v. California - 530 U.S. 392 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA ON EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER No.8, Orig. Argued April 25, 2000-Decided June 19, 2000 This litigation began in 1952 when Arizona invoked this Court's original jurisdiction to settle a dispute with California over the extent of each State's right to use water from the Colorado River system. The United States intervened, seeking water rights on behalf of, among others, five Indian reservations, including the Fort Yuma (Quechan) Indian Reservation, the Colorado River Indian Reservation, and the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. The first round of the litigation culminated in Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546 (Arizona I), in which the Court held that the United States had reserved water rights for the five reservations, id., at 565, 599-601; that those rights must be considered present perfected rights and given priority because they were effective as of the time each...
Ramdass Vs. Angelone
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Ramdass v. Angelone - 530 U.S. 156 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus RAMDASS v. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7000. Argued April 18, 2000-Decided June 12, 2000 Petitioner Ramdass was sentenced to death in Virginia for the murder of Mohammed Kayani. Under Virginia law, a conviction does not become final until the jury returns a verdict and, some time thereafter, the judge enters a final judgment of conviction. At the time of the Kayani sentencing trial, a final judgment had been entered against Ramdass for an armed robbery at a Pizza Hut restaurant and a jury had found him guilty of an armed robbery at a Domino's Pizza restaurant, but no final judgment had been entered. The prosecutor argued future dangerousness at the Kayani sentencing trial, claiming that Ramdass would commit further violent crimes if released. The jury recommended death. Mter final judgment was entered on...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »