U.S. Supreme Court 2012 Term Arguments

A case in which the Court held that eliminating the diminished capacity defense retroactively was reasonable.

A case in which the Court found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires the plaintiff to prove their employer would not have taken an action but for the existence of improper motives.

A case in which the Court held that attempting to compel a person to issue a recommendation does not constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act.

A case in which the Court held that Congress’ approval of an interstate water compact does not violate the Commerce Clause and that the compact does respect state lines.

A case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the First Amendment to withhold funding from non-government organizations if they did not institute an anti-prostitution policy.

A case in which the Court found that the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act preempts a Virginia state law regarding beneficiary designation upon divorce.

A case in which the Court held that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress the power to create federal crimes and regulate their punishment, as well as apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) on a defendant.

A case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination clause does not protect individuals that have not been arrested.

A case in which the Court held that when a municipal government is acting as a contract-based participant in the market, as opposed to a market regulator, it could not regulate motor carrier activities.

A case in which the Court held that a non-custodial parent cannot stop an adoption made lawfully by a non-Indian parent by invoking the ICWA.

A case in which the Court held that a magistrate judge's improper participation in plea discussions does not warrant vacating a guilty plea.

A case in which the Court held that naturally occurring genes cannot be patented, but a creation of a new product in a lab could be patented.

A case in which the Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A case in which the Court found that the proponents of California's same-sex marriage ban (Proposition 8) do not have standing to appeal the decision that made Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

A case in which the Court found that antitrust law applies to reverse payment agreements.

A case in which the Court held that an arbitrator did not exceed his power when he interpreted that the parties intended, even if not explicitly, to authorize class-wide arbitration.

A case in which the Court found that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not override state law regarding transportation of property.

A case in which the Court held the Takings Clause must be evaluated under the capacity in which the Government fines, and the citizens do not need to file a Takings Clause challenge in the Court of Federal Claims.

A case in which the Court found that federal law preempts state law design-defect claims.

A case in which the Court found that a person who petitions under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act can recover attorney's fees regardless of if the petition was ultimately successful.

A case in which the Court found the National Voter Registration Act preempted other voter registration requirements.

A case in which the Court held that debts arising out of fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity are not dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings.

A case in which the Court found that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional.

A case in which the Court held that a clause prohibiting class action suits was enforceable even though it would cause costly arbitration.

A case in which the Court found that using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines at the time of the sentencing for a crime rather than at the time of the offense is a violation of the ex post facto clause.

A case in which the Court found that taking a DNA sample from people who are arrested, but not yet convicted, of a serious crime is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that proving actual innocence allows a petitioner to pursue habeas corpus relief regardless of a statute of limitations.

A case in which the Court found that procedural default will not bar a federal court from hearing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

A case in which the Court found that under the Privileges and Immunities clause and the Dormant Commerce clause, a state can deny access to its public records to citizens of another state.

A case in which the Court held that courts should use a common-sense, substance-based approach instead of a formalistic approach when considering the effect of a foreign tax.

A case in which the Court held that claims against the United States for the intentional torts of prison officials is not limited to violations made during searches, seizures, or arrests.

A case in which the Court held that even after its authorized purchase, the reproduction and reuse of a seed violated the patent of the seed.

A case in which the Court found that the courts must apply the Chevron doctrine and defer to an agency's interpretation of its jurisdiction when that jurisdiction is called into question.

A case in which the Court found that even though federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent law cases, state courts can still hear cases related to patent law as long as that it is not the primary issue.

A case in which the Court held that the government may not conditionally approve land-use permits unless the conditions are connected and approximately proportionate to the effects of the proposed land use.

A case in which the Court held that the Gonzalez Act made an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act by saying that a claim of the intentional tort of battery may be brought against an armed forces physician.

A case in which the Court found that a defendant cannot be found guilty of a claim not included in the indictment.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a state's failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years should be weighed against the state in violation of the right to a speedy trial.

A case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects against the warrantless taking of a blood sample under exigent circumstances.

A case in which the Court found that lawyers may use personal information protected by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act to find potential plaintiffs for a group action.

A case in which the Court held that federal law preempts North Carolina's state law regarding reimbursement of medical expenses from a patient's settlement.

A case in which the Court held that a five-year statute of limitations period begins at the time the violation is committed.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff in a class action case cannot stipulate that the potential damages are less than $5 million in order to remove the case from federal jurisdiction.

A case in which the Court held that it was improper to apply the categorical approach in which the courts apply elements of a prior conviction with elements of a generic crime in order to enhance a sentence under the ACCA.

A case in which the Court decided that the return of a child to his or her country of residence pursuant to The Hague Convention, does not make an appeal of that order moot.

A case in which the Court found that transferring polluted water from one portion of a waterway to another portion of the same waterway did not constitute pollution under the Clean Water Act.

A case in which the Court held that the statute of limitations for filing a claim with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board may be extended up to 3 years.

A case in which the Court held that a collective action suit on behalf of other "similarly situated" employees becomes moot when the individual claim does.

A case in which the Court found that based on the Clean Water Act, a permit is not necessary for storm water runoff because it is not associated with industrial activity.

A case in which the Court held that the determination of “plain error” is made during the appellate review, not during the trial.

A case in which the Court held that when a contract is silent on allocation of relief, the parties' intentions are best determined by the common-fund doctrine.