Supreme Court of the United States, 1993

Justice Kennedy's opinion held that compliance with the Fourth Amendment does not displace procedural due process protections in civil forfeiture proceedings and that, absent exigent circumstances, the Government must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property.

Justice O’Connor delivered the Court’s unanimous opinion affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court held that parents may obtain reimbursement under IDEA for an appropriate private placement following an inadequate public placement even though the private school does not satisfy all statutory requirements applicable to…

Justice O'Connor, writing for a unanimous Court, held that a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim does not require serious psychological injury. The environment must be objectively hostile or abusive and subjectively perceived as such, assessed under all the circumstances without requiring any single factor.

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices White, Stevens, O'Connor, and Souter, held that forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) constitute punishment subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, regardless of their civil designation.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices White, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, held that the postconviction RICO forfeiture of Alexander's businesses and assets did not violate the First Amendment.

The Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded Frye's exclusive general-acceptance test for scientific evidence. Rule 702 requires trial judges to ensure that scientific expert testimony is reliable and relevant through a flexible assessment of scientific methodology and its application to the facts.

The Court held unanimously that domestic insurers do not lose otherwise available McCarran-Ferguson Act antitrust immunity merely by acting with foreign reinsurers assumed to be unregulated by state law.

The Court held that double jeopardy protection attaches to nonsummary criminal contempt proceedings and overruled Grady v. Corbin’s same-conduct test. It affirmed the bar against Dixon’s drug prosecution and Foster’s simple-assault prosecution, but reversed as to Foster’s remaining threat and…

Justice Scalia's majority opinion held that rejecting an employer's asserted nondiscriminatory reasons does not compel judgment for a Title VII plaintiff. Once the employer produces evidence of legitimate reasons, the McDonnell Douglas presumption disappears, and the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving…

The Court affirmed a $10 million punitive damages award accompanying $19,000 in actual damages for slander of title, but no rationale commanded five votes. Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Blackmun, concluded that the award was not grossly excessive given the potential financial harm…

Justice Kennedy's opinion upheld Kentucky's differing procedures for involuntary commitment based on intellectual disability and mental illness. Applying rational-basis review, the Court held that differences in diagnostic difficulty, prediction of dangerousness, and treatment justified different burdens of proof, and…

Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Scalia, and Thomas, held that Texas's former capital-sentencing special issues allowed adequate consideration of Johnson's youth and therefore did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court held that the competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving counsel is the same Dusky standard that governs competency to stand trial. A defendant's ability to represent himself is distinct from his competence to choose self-representation.

Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, and Thomas, held that predatory pricing claims require below-cost pricing and a sufficient prospect of recouping the resulting losses through sustained supracompetitive prices.

The Court unanimously held that courts reviewing agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act may not impose additional exhaustion requirements once the action is final under § 10(c).

The Court held that when it applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, every court must apply that rule retroactively in cases still open on direct review, including to events preceding the rule's announcement.

Justice White, writing for seven Justices, held that a prisoner states an Eighth Amendment claim by alleging that officials, with deliberate indifference, exposed him to environmental tobacco smoke posing an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health. Present injury is not required.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the unanimous opinion holding that Wisconsin could constitutionally enhance Mitchell’s sentence because he intentionally selected his battery victim on account of race.

The Court held that the federal priority statute is displaced by Ohio's liquidation priorities to the extent those priorities protect policyholders and pay the administrative expenses necessary to distribute policyholder claims.

Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion holding that an oversecured home mortgage creditor is entitled to both preconfirmation and postconfirmation interest on arrearages cured through a Chapter 13 plan, even when the mortgage documents do not provide for such interest.

The Court unanimously held that court reporters are not entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages liability for failing to produce a trial transcript. Justice Stevens explained that court reporters lack a historical common-law entitlement to judicial immunity and perform a ministerial duty to record…

Justice White's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, and Souter, held that excluding a church's film series on family and child-rearing issues solely because it presented a religious perspective was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

The Court unanimously held that section 92, authorizing certain national banks to act as insurance agents, was not repealed in 1918. Justice Souter explained that the 1916 statute's structure, language, and subject matter established that Congress placed the provision in the Federal Reserve Act, notwithstanding…

The Supreme Court held that clause (ii) of 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A) — directing 'suitable retroactive corrective adjustments' where aggregate reimbursement proves inadequate or excessive — is ambiguous, and that the Secretary's construction limiting clause (ii) to year-end reconciliation of interim payments with…

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia joined by Justices Blackmun, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, held that ERISA § 502(a)(3)'s authorization of “appropriate equitable relief” does not permit compensatory damages against a nonfiduciary alleged to have knowingly participated in a fiduciary's breach.

Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the constitutionally deficient reasonable-doubt instruction given at Sullivan's trial deprived him of a jury verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and constituted structural error not subject to harmless-error review.

Justice Souter delivered the unanimous opinion holding that the Indian Health Service’s decision to discontinue a regional program for handicapped Indian children and reallocate its resources nationwide was committed to agency discretion and therefore not subject to substantive review under the Administrative…

Justice Souter's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, affirmed the dismissal of Keene's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1500.

Justice O’Connor delivered the unanimous opinion holding that FOIA Exemption 7(D) does not authorize a presumption that every source providing information to the FBI during a criminal investigation is confidential.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice O'Connor joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Blackmun, Kennedy, and Thomas, held that offering to trade a firearm for cocaine constitutes using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).

Justice Stevens, writing for a unanimous Court, held that an FTCA claimant must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Exhaustion after filing does not cure a premature action, even when no substantial litigation has occurred.

The Court held that the Federal Circuit's affirmance of patent noninfringement does not moot an independently supported declaratory judgment counterclaim challenging patent validity.

Justice Kennedy delivered the unanimous opinion holding that Sentencing Guidelines commentary interpreting or explaining a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with or a plainly erroneous reading of the guideline.

Justice Kennedy's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, and Thomas, held that Florida's prohibition on direct, uninvited solicitation by certified public accountants violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments as applied in the business context.

Justice O'Connor's opinion held that Rule 52(b) permits correction of forfeited errors only when they are clear or obvious and affect substantial rights, ordinarily requiring the defendant to demonstrate prejudice.

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, held that constitutional trial errors on federal habeas review are governed by Kotteakos's substantial-and-injurious-effect standard rather than Chapman's harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that the Federal Railroad Safety Act and implementing regulations preempted Easterwood's excessive-speed negligence claim but not her inadequate-warning-device claim.

Justice O’Connor delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court in this original interstate water-rights action. The Court overruled all exceptions to the Special Master’s reports, granted Nebraska and the United States summary judgment recognizing the Inland Lakes’ December 6, 1904, priority and associated storage…

The Supreme Court held that the Debt Collection Act of 1982 did not abrogate the United States’ federal common‑law right to collect prejudgment interest on debts owed by the States, reversing the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.