Supreme Court of the United States, 1981

The Court held that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing the traditional functions of counsel for a criminal defendant, even though the defender is employed and paid by the government.

The Court held that Berkeley's $250 cap on contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures violates the First Amendment. The cap substantially burdened political association and expression, while the city's asserted interests in preventing corruption, preserving voter confidence, and identifying…

The Court held that Berkeley's $250 limit on contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures violated the First Amendment. Because the limit restricted the ability of individuals to associate and pool resources for political advocacy while leaving individuals free to spend unlimited amounts…

The Court held that a state university that opens its facilities to student groups may not exclude a group from that forum because it intends to engage in religious worship and discussion, absent a compelling justification narrowly tailored to that interest.

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot defeat a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds merely by showing that the substantive law of the alternative forum is less favorable, because the possibility of an unfavorable change in law should ordinarily be given no conclusive or substantial weight, unless…

The Court held that facially inconsistent verdicts in a non‑jury state bench trial do not, by themselves, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and therefore federal habeas relief was unavailable.

The Court held that a facially inconsistent verdict in a state bench trial does not, by itself, establish a federal constitutional violation or justify habeas relief. A state trial judge need not explain an acquittal, and a conviction supported by sufficient evidence after a fair trial remains constitutionally valid…

The Court reversed the California Supreme Court and held the San Diego billboard ordinance unconstitutional on its face because it prohibited most noncommercial messages while allowing selected categories of signs, including onsite commercial advertising.

The Court upheld Montana's coal severance tax against Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause challenges. It held that severance taxes are subject to the practical, four-part Commerce Clause inquiry, but Montana's tax had a substantial nexus, was fairly apportioned, did not discriminate against interstate commerce, and…

The Court affirmed Montana's coal severance tax against both Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause challenges. It held that severance taxes are subject to the practical, four-part analysis applicable to other state taxes, but that Montana's tax had a substantial nexus, was fairly apportioned, nondiscriminatory, and…

The Court reversed the Michigan Supreme Court, holding that a valid search warrant implicitly authorizes police to detain occupants of the premises while the search is conducted, and therefore the pre‑arrest seizure of the respondent did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that the term "enterprise" in RICO encompasses both legitimate and wholly illegitimate (criminal) enterprises, reversing the First Circuit's contrary ruling. Applying the plain language of 18 U.S.C.

The Court held that double celling at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the challenged conditions did not deprive inmates of essential food, medical care, sanitation, safety, or other basic necessities, and did not inflict unnecessary or wanton pain.

The Court held that applying Connecticut's cost-shifting statute to deny an indigent defendant access to court-ordered blood grouping tests in a publicly supported paternity action violated due process.

The Court held that due process does not categorically require appointed counsel for indigent parents in every parental-rights termination proceeding. Instead, the trial court must decide on a case-by-case basis whether counsel is necessary, considering the parent's interests, the State's interests, the risk of error…

The Court held that the State violated the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by using statements from a court-ordered competency examination to prove future dangerousness at the capital-sentencing phase without adequate warnings or an opportunity to consult counsel.

The Court held that negligent conduct by state officials can support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but that a random and unauthorized negligent loss of property does not violate procedural due process when the State provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy.

The Court held that after a suspect invokes the right to counsel during custodial interrogation, police may not reinitiate interrogation unless counsel has been made available or the suspect initiates further communication.

The Court held that an arrest warrant does not authorize officers, absent consent or exigent circumstances, to search a third party’s home for the person named in the warrant; a search warrant is required to protect the home’s resident.

The Court held that 42 U.S.C. §6010 does not create enforceable substantive rights for developmentally disabled persons and therefore imposes no mandatory obligations on states; it reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this construction.

The Court, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burger, held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation to a claimant who quit his job for religious reasons violates the Free Exercise Clause and does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause, thereby reversing the Indiana Supreme Court's judgment.

The Court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission may impose disciplinary sanctions in securities-law adjudications when violations are proved by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than by clear and convincing evidence.

The Court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission may determine violations in disciplinary proceedings under the securities laws using the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

The Court held that Florida's revised gain-time statute violated the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to a prisoner whose offense preceded the statute's enactment. The statute operated retrospectively because it changed the legal consequences of the completed offense, and it disadvantaged the prisoner by reducing…

The Court held that the statutory presumption of correctness under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) applies to factual determinations made by state appellate courts after reviewing the trial record.