Supreme Court of the United States, 2001

Chief Justice Rehnquist concurs in the judgment affirming the Court of Appeals, arguing Missouri's Article VIII violates First Amendment rights of candidates by requiring pejorative labels based on viewpoint rather than compelled speech.

Justice Stevens concurs in the judgment, agreeing that the delegation of power to the EPA is constitutional under § 109, but argues that agency rulemaking authority should be characterized as legislative power rather than treated as otherwise.

The Supreme Court held that the claim-preclusive effect of a federal judgment dismissing a diversity action on statute-of-limitations grounds is governed by federal common law, which incorporates the law of claim preclusion that state courts in the State where the federal court sits would apply.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held that the Clean Air Act prohibits consideration of implementation costs when setting primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards, that § 109(b)(1) satisfies the constitutional nondelegation requirement, that the court of appeals had jurisdiction to…

Justice O'Connor delivered the unanimous opinion holding that the District Court properly exercised its discretion by dissolving an injunction against a seaman's state-court personal injury action after protecting the vessel owner's right to seek limitation of liability.

Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, agreeing the state-law fraud claim should not proceed because plaintiffs could not prove causation given the FDA's failure to remove the device after learning of the fraud.

Justice Stevens, writing for a unanimous Court, held that immunity under 33 U.S.C. § 702c depends on the character of the waters causing the damage and the purposes behind their release, not merely on the connection between the damage and a federal flood control project.

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, held that federal law impliedly preempts the plaintiffs' state-law fraud-on-the-FDA claims and reversed the Third Circuit.

Justice Breyer, dissenting with Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, argues Congress had sufficient evidence to enforce the Equal Protection Clause regarding disability discrimination under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, joining the Court's opinion, on the reasoning that a state's failure to adopt revised policies does not necessarily constitute the intentional action required to violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, held that the Eleventh Amendment bars private suits seeking money damages from nonconsenting States under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Justice Souter concurs with the Court’s judgment, emphasizing that exigent‑circumstances analysis depends on the suspect’s location and that the law’s strong preference for warrants justifies impounding a dwelling rather than conducting a warrantless search.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Souter joined by Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, held that the Association's enforcement of its recruiting rule constituted state action because public schools and public officials were pervasively entwined in its composition, governance, and operations, with no…

Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the National Bank for Cooperatives was subject to state income taxation notwithstanding its designation as a federal instrumentality.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Breyer joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, held that police reasonably prevented McArthur from entering his home unaccompanied for approximately two hours while diligently obtaining a search warrant.

Justice Stevens dissents, arguing the minor nature of the offense makes it a poor vehicle for Fourth Amendment analysis. He would dismiss certiorari but, compelled to reach the merits, would affirm based on the sanctity of the home outweighing the need to prosecute petty crimes.

Justice Scalia concurring agreed with the Court’s holding that a civil statute cannot be deemed punitive as applied for Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto purposes. He clarified that courts cannot consider actual conditions of confinement in the first-instance determination of whether a statute is civil or criminal…

The Court held that a facially civil statute cannot be deemed punitive “as applied” to an individual under the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses based on conditions of confinement. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s grant of an evidentiary hearing on this theory.

Justice Ginsburg delivered the unanimous opinion dismissing the writ of certiorari and leaving the Wisconsin court’s judgment undisturbed. City News’s withdrawal of its license-renewal application, cessation of business, and lack of a present plan to reopen eliminated a live controversy.

Justice O'Connor's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, held that a confinement statute already found civil cannot be deemed punitive as applied to an individual to obtain release under the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses.

Justice Stevens dissented from the Court’s refusal to permit respondent to prove that the Washington commitment scheme was punitive in purpose or effect based on the actual conditions of confinement.

Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment, stating that a statute civil on its face cannot be divested of its civil nature merely due to implementation conditions under Hudson v. United States. He rejects respondent's claim as inconsistent with Hudson and the majority's analysis.

Justice Thomas dissents, arguing that the Third Circuit erred in holding that a §1983 claim fails because prosecutorial misconduct only harms child witnesses, not the defendant, and that the Second Circuit’s approach allowing liability for such misconduct is correct.

Justice Ginsburg, writing for six Justices, held that the Bureau of Prisons permissibly excluded from early-release eligibility prisoners whose current felony involved a firearm.

Justice Stevens, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy, dissented from the Court's approval of the Bureau of Prisons regulation categorically denying sentence-reduction consideration to certain prisoners with nonviolent convictions who completed drug treatment.

Justice Breyer dissents, arguing the majority's reading of §108(d)(7)(A) permits solvent shareholders of insolvent S corporations to shelter unrelated income through suspended loss deductions.

Justice Kennedy delivered the unanimous opinion holding that an increase in imprisonment resulting from an asserted Sentencing Guidelines error need not exceed a minimum threshold of significance to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, held that the Corps exceeded its authority under § 404(a) of the Clean Water Act by applying the Migratory Bird Rule to SWANCC's isolated, nonnavigable, intrastate ponds.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that Fiore’s conviction and continued incarceration violated due process because Pennsylvania had failed to prove an essential element of the offense: operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit. Pennsylvania conceded that Fiore possessed a permit.

The Court held that excluded discharge of indebtedness for an insolvent S corporation is an 'item of income' that passes through to shareholders to increase stock basis. It further held that this basis increase occurs before reduction of tax attributes under § 108(b), allowing shareholders to deduct suspended losses.

Justice Stevens dissenting argues that the majority’s narrow reading of the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction improperly limits federal authority over “isolated” waters, contrary to the Act’s purpose, legislative history, and prior precedent such as Riverside Bayview, and that the Corps’ interpretation deserves Chevron…

The Court held that excluded discharge of indebtedness for an insolvent S corporation is an item of income that passes through to shareholders to increase basis. It further held that basis adjustment occurs before tax attribute reduction under § 108(b).