Supreme Court of the United States, 2004

Justice Breyer, dissenting, argues that the rule in Ring v. Arizona should apply retroactively in habeas proceedings as a watershed procedural rule under Teague v. Lane. He contends that requiring juries to find aggravating factors is central to accurate determination in capital cases, and that Teague’s aims of…

Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, reasoning that broad discovery is inappropriate when it prejudges the merits of a mandamus claim. He emphasized that mandamus requires a clear nondiscretionary duty and that discovery should be tailored to show entitlement.

The Court held that Mills v. Maryland announced a new rule of criminal procedure that does not fall within either Teague v. Lane exception, so it does not apply retroactively to respondent. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that Mills merely clarified existing Eighth Amendment principles against arbitrary sentencing.

Justice Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part, argues that respondents failed to meet the high burden required for mandamus relief regarding FACA discovery orders against the Vice President.

Justice Ginsburg dissents, arguing the Court should affirm the Court of Appeals' denial of mandamus. She asserts mandamus relief is premature because the Government never asked the District Court to narrow discovery despite opportunities.

The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Circuit's threshold 'constitutional relevance' test for Penry claims—requiring a 'uniquely severe permanent handicap' and a 'nexus' between the condition and the crime—has no foundation in the Court's precedents and improperly screened out Tennard's low-IQ mitigating evidence…

Justice Souter dissents, joining Justice Stevens. He critiques the majority's application of the Teague v. Lane new rule standard, arguing the Court overemphasizes finality and undervalues accuracy in capital sentencing. He contends Mills v.

In his dissent, Justice Breyer argued that § 1782 should be subject to categorical limits to avoid international disharmony and excessive discovery costs. He proposed deferring to the foreign body’s view of its status as a tribunal and barring discovery when it is unavailable under both foreign and domestic law.

Justice Ginsburg concurs in the Court's judgment that Texas law claims are preempted by ERISA but expresses strong reservations about the regulatory vacuum created by limiting equitable relief under § 502(a)(3).

Justice Breyer dissents, arguing that Fourth Amendment precedents limit Terry stops and prohibit compelling identification during them, citing dicta that detainees are not obliged to respond. Justice Stevens dissents separately, arguing the Fifth Amendment protects the right to refuse identification during such stops.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, affirmed the Nevada Supreme Court and upheld Nevada's 'stop and identify' statute as applied to a motorist convicted of obstructing an officer after refusing eleven times to give his name during a valid investigative stop.

Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, held that respondents’ Texas statutory claims challenging denials of coverage under ERISA-regulated benefit plans were completely preempted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and removable to federal court.

The Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorizes federal district courts to grant discovery assistance to any "interested person," including a complainant before the European Commission, that the foreign proceeding need not be pending, and that there is no foreign‑discoverability requirement; the Ninth Circuit’s…

Justice Stevens dissents, arguing the Nevada statute compelling identification during a Terry stop violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He contends identity disclosure is testimonial and potentially incriminating, citing precedents like Miranda, Terry, and Hubbell.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's determination that the Tax Injunction Act does not bar Arizona taxpayers' federal-court Establishment Clause challenge to a state income-tax credit for contributions to private-school tuition organizations, because the challengers do not contest their own tax liability…

The Supreme Court held that Title VII encompasses constructive discharge claims, requiring a showing that discriminatory harassment made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to resign.

The Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea for unpreserved Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 error must show, under Rule 52(b)'s plain-error standard, a reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea, and that the reviewing court must weigh the…

Chief Justice Rehnquist concurred in the judgment, dissenting from the Court's novel prudential standing principle which barred Newdow from suing due to his family law rights. On the merits, he concluded the Pledge policy does not violate the Establishment Clause because the phrase "under God" is a patriotic…

Justice O’Connor concurred in the judgment, joining the Chief Justice’s view that Newdow has standing and the school district’s Pledge policy does not offend the Establishment Clause.

Justice Thomas dissents, arguing that the Court's definition of constructive discharge departs from actual discharge standards and improperly treats it like a hostile work environment claim.

Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the Court's holding that respondent need not show prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence. He criticized the gradations of probability standards, arguing only clear measures like "more likely than not" are serviceable for judicial decisionmaking.

Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment, agreeing that the Pledge policy does not violate the Constitution. He argues the Establishment Clause is a federalism provision that does not apply to the States via incorporation, and that historical coercion, not peer pressure, is what it bars.

Justice Breyer's majority opinion held that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act's general exclusion encompasses wholly foreign transactions, not merely exports, and that its domestic-injury exception does not permit a Sherman Act claim based solely on foreign injury independent of domestic harm.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision holding that the Elk Grove Unified School District's daily teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, containing the words 'under God,' violated the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court held that the APA's authorization to 'compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,' 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), extends only to a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take. Applying that framework, it rejected all three of SUWA's claims: the 43 U.S.C.

The Court unanimously held that ERISA’s anti-cutback rule prohibits a pension plan amendment expanding the categories of postretirement employment that trigger suspension of already-accrued early retirement benefits.

The Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to conduct predating its 1976 enactment, including conduct predating the State Department’s 1952 adoption of restrictive sovereign immunity, and affirmed the Ninth Circuit on different reasoning.

Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court. The Court held that FMCSA was not required under NEPA to evaluate the environmental effects of increased Mexican truck traffic because its limited statutory authority gave it no discretion to prevent that traffic.

Justice Scalia joined the Court's opinion holding the FSIA applies retroactively to pre-enactment conduct, adding that jurisdiction-expanding statutes should similarly be applied to subsequent cases regardless of prior forum availability.

Justice Kennedy dissents, arguing the Court incorrectly rejects the presumption against retroactivity when applying the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). He contends the FSIA lacks a clear statement required for retroactive application, and as a jurisdictional statute, may create new jurisdiction for…

Justice Breyer, dissenting, concluded that Michael Alvarado was in custody during interrogation without Miranda warnings, arguing that a reasonable person in his position would not have felt free to leave.

The Court held that the state court reasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law in finding Alvarado's police interview noncustodial, and therefore federal habeas relief was unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Justice O’Connor delivered the unanimous opinion holding that Nelson could use § 1983 to challenge the proposed cut-down procedure for obtaining venous access before lethal injection.

Justice Scalia dissents from the Court's conclusion that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act validly abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argues that the 'congruence and proportionality' test is an unmoored, malleable standard that invites judicial arbitrariness.

The Court held that a debtor's proceeding to determine whether a state-guaranteed student loan is dischargeable for undue hardship is not a suit against the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

The Court upheld 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) under the Spending and Necessary and Proper Clauses without requiring proof that a particular bribe affected federal funds. Protecting federally funded entities against corruption rationally safeguards federal spending, and the statute regulates individuals directly rather than…

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas, dissents from the majority’s decision that Title II of the ADA validly abrogates state sovereign immunity. He applies the congruence-and-proportionality test, concluding the legislative record lacks evidence of systematic constitutional violations…

The Court held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act validly abrogates state sovereign immunity as applied to cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts.

The Court held that a continuing party's postfiling change in citizenship cannot cure the absence of diversity jurisdiction when the action was filed. Justice Scalia distinguished dismissal of a dispensable nondiverse party from withdrawal of nondiverse partners from a partnership that remains a party, and rejected an…

Justice Souter, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, concurs in the Court's judgment upholding Title II of the ADA as applied to access to courts, noting caveats about Eleventh Amendment and § 5 jurisprudence from Hibbs.