Supreme Court of the United States, 1983

The Supreme Court held that the word "interest" in the RICO criminal forfeiture provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)(1), reaches profits and proceeds derived from racketeering activity and is not limited to interests in an enterprise.

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's denial of Barefoot's federal habeas petition challenging his Texas death sentence. It held that the Fifth Circuit acted within precedent by denying a stay of execution after hearing argument and resolving the merits of the appeal under summary procedures, treating the…

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the state-court judgment because the opinion below fairly appeared to rest primarily on federal law and did not clearly state an adequate and independent state ground.

The Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits South Dakota from imposing life imprisonment without parole on Helm for uttering a $100 no-account check after six prior nonviolent felonies.

The Court affirmed the New York Court of Appeals and held that an unmarried biological father who had not established a substantial relationship with his child was not constitutionally entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the child's adoption.

The Court held that New York's Human Rights Law and Disability Benefits Law relate to ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, but their pre-emption consequences differ. The Human Rights Law is pre-empted only insofar as it prohibits conduct that federal law permits, while the Disability Benefits Law remains enforceable…

The Court held that an agency rescinding an existing regulation is subject to the same arbitrary-and-capricious review as when promulgating one, but must provide a reasoned analysis for changing course.

The Court held that the federal courts lacked original and removal jurisdiction over California's state-law actions to enforce tax levies against funds held in an ERISA-covered vacation plan and to obtain a declaration that the levies were valid notwithstanding ERISA.

The Court reversed the judgment requiring vacation of respondent's death sentence. It held that Georgia's capital-sentencing scheme constitutionally narrows death-penalty eligibility through statutory aggravating circumstances while leaving the ultimate selection decision to the sentencer, and that the jury's express…

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a brief detention of personal luggage based on reasonable, articulable suspicion that it contains narcotics so police can expose it to a trained detection dog.

The Supreme Court held that New Mexico's hunting and fishing laws are pre‑empted by federal law and cannot apply to the Mescalero Apache Tribe reservation, affirming the Court of Appeals judgment.

The Court declined to consider a proposed modification of the exclusionary rule because that issue had not been presented to the state courts. On the question properly before it, the Court held that probable cause must be assessed under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach and concluded that police corroboration…

Holding that the six-month limitations period of § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act governs hybrid suits by employees against employers for breach of a collective-bargaining agreement and against unions for breach of the duty of fair representation, the Court rejected both state arbitration-vacatur periods…

The Supreme Court held that § 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a turnover order compelling the IRS to return property it seized under a tax levy one day before the debtor filed its Chapter 11 petition, because property of the debtor seized by a creditor prepetition is part of the reorganization estate.

The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a State from automatically revoking an indigent probationer's probation for failure to pay a fine and restitution without first inquiring into the reasons for the nonpayment.

The Supreme Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 permits foreign plaintiffs to sue foreign states in United States courts, and that Congress's grant of jurisdiction over such suits is constitutional under Article III's 'Arising Under' Clause.

The Court held that a reviewing court may not reverse criminal convictions under supervisory authority while avoiding harmless-error analysis for an assumed constitutional violation.

The Court held that the extent of a plaintiff’s success is a crucial factor in determining a reasonable attorney’s‑fee award under 42 U.S.C. §1988, and that hours spent on distinct, unsuccessful claims must be excluded while hours on related claims may be compensated when substantial relief is obtained.

The Court held that California Penal Code § 647(e), as construed by the state courts, was facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because it failed to specify what a person must do to provide a "credible and reliable" identification.

The Court held that transferring a state prisoner from Hawaii to California did not itself implicate a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It further held that Hawaii's prison regulations did not create such an interest because they imposed no substantive limits on the administrator's discretion…

The Court held that Lyons lacked standing to seek an injunction against Los Angeles's use of police chokeholds because he did not show a real and immediate likelihood that he would again be stopped and subjected to an unconstitutional chokehold.

The Court held that the discharge of a public employee for distributing a questionnaire about internal office affairs did not violate the First Amendment. Most of the questionnaire concerned a personal employment dispute rather than matters of public concern, and the single question that did address a public concern…

The Court reversed the suppression ruling because the officer lawfully observed a balloon in the automobile and had probable cause to believe it contained narcotics. The plain-view doctrine requires lawful access and probable cause connecting the object to criminal activity, not near certainty that the object is…

The Court held that, after a Title VII discrimination case has been fully tried and the employer has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation, the prima facie-case framework is no longer the central issue.

The Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' waiver proceedings are judicial in nature, making its final judgments reviewable only by the Supreme Court, so the District Court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction over claims intertwined with those judgments; however, the District Court may hear a…

The Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not permit a convicted person to recover damages from a police officer for perjured trial testimony: all witnesses, including police officers testifying about the performance of their official duties, are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability based on their testimony…

The Court dismissed the direct appeal because the court of appeals had invalidated provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement rather than a state statute, but treated the jurisdictional statement as a certiorari petition and reviewed the merits.

The Court held that the federal district court's stay of Mercury's action to compel arbitration was immediately appealable because it effectively removed the case from federal court and was otherwise reviewable under the collateral-order doctrine.

The Court held that Pennsylvania regulations created a protected liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population because they used mandatory language and specified substantive predicates for administrative segregation.

Justice Stevens delivered the Court's opinion holding that the unions' complaint did not establish entitlement to treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act. Allegations that defendants intended to injure the unions through coercion affecting construction contracting did not overcome the absence of antitrust injury…

The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit cumulative punishments imposed in a single trial when the legislature has clearly authorized them, even if the offenses are the same under the applicable same-offense test.