Us Supreme Court Court June 2006 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.
Clark Vs. Arizona
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-29-2006
Clark v. Arizona - 05-5966 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 CLARK V. ARIZONA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CLARK v . ARIZONA certiorari to the court of appeals of arizona No. 055966.Argued April 19, 2006Decided June 29, 2006 Petitioner Clark was charged with first-degree murder under an Arizona statute prohibiting [i]nten[tionally] or knowing[ly] killing a police officer in the line of duty. At his bench trial, Clark did not contest that he shot the officer or that the officer died, but relied on his own undisputed paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the incident to deny that he had the specific intent to shoot an officer or knowledge that he was doing so. Accordingly, the prosecutor offered circumstantial evidence that Clark knew the victim was a police officer and testimony indicating that Clark had previously stated he wanted to shoot police and had lured the victim to the scene to kill him. In presenting the defense case, Clark claimed mental illness, which he s...
Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-29-2006
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - 05-184 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAMDAN v . RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05184.Argued March 28, 2006Decided June 29, 2006 Pursuant to Congress Joint Resolution authorizing the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF), U. S. Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan. During the hostilities, in 2001, militia forces captured petitioner Hamdan, a Yemeni national, and turned him over to the U. S. military, which, in 2002, transported him to prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Over a year later, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by military commission for then-unspecified crimes. After another year, he was charged with conspiracy ...
League of United LatIn American Citizens Vs. Perry
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry - 05-204 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS V.PERRY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS et al. v . PERRY, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of texas No. 05204.Argued March 1, 2006Decided June 28, 2006 The 1990 census resulted in a 3-seat increase over the 27 seats previously allotted the Texas congressional delegation. Although the Democratic Party then controlled 19 of those 27 seats, as well as both state legislative houses and the governorship, change was in the air: The Republican Party had received 47% of the 1990 statewide vote, while the Democrats had received only 51%. Faced with a possible Republican ascent to majority status, the legislature drew a congressional redistricting plan that favored Democratic candidates. The Republicans challenged the 1991 Plan as an unconstitutio...
Beard Vs. Banks
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Beard v. Banks - 04-1739 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 BEARD V. BANKS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BEARD, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v . BANKS, individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 041739.Argued March 27, 2006Decided June 28, 2006 Pennsylvania houses its 40 most dangerous and recalcitrant inmates in a Long Term Segregation Unit (LTSU). Inmates begin in level 2, which has the most severe restrictions, but may graduate to the less restrictive level 1. Plaintiff-respondent Banks, a level 2 inmate, filed this federal-court action against defendant-petitioner, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections, alleging that a level 2 policy (Policy) forbidding inmates any access to newspapers, magazines, and photographs violates the First Amendment. During discovery, Banks deposed Deputy Prison Superintendent Dickson and the parties introduced prison pol...
Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. Vs. Murphy
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy - 05-18 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION v . MURPHY et vir. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 0518.Argued April 19, 2006Decided June 26, 2006 After respondents prevailed in their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action to require petitioner school board to pay for their sons private school tuition, they sought fees for services rendered by an educational consultant during the proceedings, relying on an IDEA provision that permits a court to award reasonable attorneys fees as part of the costs to prevailing parents, 20 U. S. C. 1415(i)(3)(B). The District Court granted their motion in part. Affirming, the Second Circuit noted that, under Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U. S. 437 , and West Virginia Univ. ...
Randall Vs. Sorrell
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Randall v. Sorrell - 04-1528 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 RANDALL V. SORRELL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RANDALL et al. v . SORRELL et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 041528.Argued February 28, 2006Decided June 26, 2006 Vermonts Act 64 stringently limits both the amounts that candidates for state office may spend on their campaigns and the amounts that individuals, organizations, and political parties may contribute to those campaigns. Soon after Act 64 became law, the petitionersindividuals who have run for state office, citizens who vote in state elections and contribute to campaigns, and political parties and committees participating in state politicsbrought this suit against the respondents, state officials charged with enforcing the Act. The District Court held that Act 64s expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 , and that the Acts limits on political parties con...
Washington Vs. Recuenco
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Washington v. Recuenco - 05-83 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON v . RECUENCO certiorari to the supreme court of washington No. 0583.Argued April 17, 2006Decided June 26, 2006 After respondent threatened his wife with a handgun, he was convicted of second-degree assault based on the jurys finding that he had assaulted her with a deadly weapon. A firearm qualifies as a deadly weapon under Washington law, but nothing in the verdict form specifically required the jury to find that respondent had engaged in assault with a firearm, as opposed to any other kind of deadly weapon. Nevertheless, the state trial court applied a 3-year firearm enhancement to respondents sentence, rather than the 1-year enhancement that specifically applies to assault with a deadly weapon, based on the courts own factual findings that respondent was armed with a firearm. This Court then decided Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U. S. ...
United States Vs. Gonzalez-lopez
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - 05-352 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . GONZALEZ-LOPEZ certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 05352.Argued April 18, 2006Decided June 26, 2006 Respondent hired attorney Low to represent him on a federal drug charge. The District Court denied Lows application for admission pro hac vice on the ground that he had violated a professional conduct rule and then, with one exception, prevented respondent from meeting or consulting with Low throughout the trial. The jury found respondent guilty. Reversing, the Eighth Circuit held that the District Court erred in interpreting the disciplinary rule, that the courts refusal to admit Low therefore violated respondents Sixth Amendment right to paid counsel of his choosing, and that this violation was not subject to harmless-error review. Held: A trial courts erroneous deprivatio...
Kansas Vs. Marsh
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Kansas v. Marsh - 04-1170 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 KANSAS V. MARSH SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KANSAS v . MARSH certiorari to the supreme court of kansas No. 041170.Argued December 7, 2005Reargued April 25, 2006Decided June 26, 2006 Finding three aggravating circumstances that were not outweighed by mitigating circumstances, a Kansas jury convicted respondent Marsh of, inter alia, capital murder and sentenced him to death. Marsh claimed on direct appeal that Kan. Stat. Ann. 214624(e) establishes an unconstitutional presumption in favor of death by directing imposition of the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating circumstances are in equipoise. Agreeing, the Kansas Supreme Court concluded that 214624(e)s weighing equation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and remanded for a new trial. Held: 1. This Court has jurisdiction to review the Kansas Supreme Courts judgment under 28 U. S. C. 1257. That provision authorizes review of a States...
Fernandez-vargas Vs. Gonzales
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - 04-1376 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 FERNANDEZ-VARGAS V. GONZALES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FERNANDEZ-VARGAS v . GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 041376.Argued March 22, 2006Decided June 22, 2006 Immigration law has for some time provided that an order for removing an alien present unlawfully may be reinstated if he leaves and unlawfully reenters. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to enlarge the class of illegal reentrants whose orders may be reinstated and limit the possible relief from a removal order available to them. See 241(a)(5), 8 U. S. C. 1235(a)(5). Petitioner Fernandez-Vargas, a Mexican citizen, illegally reentered the United States in 1982, after having been deported. He remained undetected for over 20 years, fathering a son in 1989 and marrying the boys ...