Supreme Court of the United States, 2011

The Supreme Court held that California's discretionary timeliness rule for postconviction habeas petitions—directing petitioners to file known claims "as promptly as the circumstances allow" and barring "substantial delay"—is firmly established and regularly followed, and therefore qualifies as an adequate and…

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that California’s discretionary habeas timeliness rule satisfies the independent and adequate state ground doctrine under Beard v. Kindler.

Justice Sotomayor concurred, agreeing with the majority that the state tort suit is not preempted. She emphasized that under Geier, implied preemption requires evidence that a regulatory objective depends on manufacturers having a choice between options, which was lacking here.

The Court held that FMVSS 208 does not preempt state tort suits claiming manufacturers should have installed lap-and-shoulder belts on rear inner seats. Unlike in Geier, the agency did not view manufacturer choice in this instance as a significant regulatory objective.

Justice Thomas, dissenting, agrees that Alabama’s sales and use taxes qualify as “another tax” under § 11501(b)(4) and that tax exemptions can make a tax discriminatory, but argues the statute requires railroads to be targeted compared to commercial and industrial taxpayers; he would affirm the dismissal because CSX…

The Court held that railroads may challenge state sales and use taxes under § 11501(b)(4) of the 4-R Act when those taxes apply to railroads but exempt their competitors. The majority interpreted 'another tax' to cover non-property taxes and 'discriminates' to include tax exemptions, distinguishing prior precedent…

The Supreme Court held that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision prohibits firing an employee to retaliate against a close relative who engaged in protected activity, and that the fired employee has standing to sue as a 'person aggrieved' within the zone of interests protected by the statute.

A per curiam Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's grants of federal habeas relief to two California prisoners, Damon Cooke and Elijah Clay, whose parole denials were attacked on the ground that state courts misapplied California's 'some evidence' review standard. The Court held that 28 U.S.C.

Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment, agreeing that an order denying summary judgment is generally unappealable after a full trial on the merits. However, he believes the Court should have decided the case on jurisdictional grounds alone without addressing the failure to renew motions for judgment as a matter of law…

The Supreme Court held that Regulation Z does not require a credit card issuer to provide advance notice of an interest-rate increase implemented pursuant to a cardholder agreement provision allowing such an increase upon delinquency or default, so long as the agreement specified the triggering contingency and maximum…

The Supreme Court held that the Oregon postconviction court's rejection of Randy Moore's ineffective-assistance claim—that counsel should have moved to suppress his confession to police before advising him to accept a no-contest plea to felony murder—was not an unreasonable application of Strickland under 28 U.S.C.

The Court assumed, without deciding, that the Constitution protects a privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. It held that the Government’s background check questions for federal contractors were reasonable employment inquiries and satisfied privacy concerns under the Privacy Act.

Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment, agreeing with the Court that the Constitution did not prevent the Government's background checks, but he argued that there is no constitutional right to informational privacy at all.

Justice Kennedy’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor, held that 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) applies to unexplained state-court denials of relief and that such denials presumptively adjudicate the merits absent contrary indications.

The Supreme Court held that NASA’s background‑check questions—including the drug‑treatment query on SF‑85 and the open‑ended inquiries on Form 42—are reasonable employment‑related inquiries and do not violate any constitutional right to informational privacy.

Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment to agree with the Court’s conclusion that Government contractor background checks do not offend the Constitution. He rejected the Court’s assumption of a constitutional right to informational privacy, arguing the Due Process Clause protects only procedures, not specified…

The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit, holding that the Treasury Department's full‑time employee rule is a permissible construction of the student exemption in §3121(b)(10) and therefore medical residents are not exempt from FICA taxes.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that Chevron deference applies to Treasury Department regulations interpreting the Internal Revenue Code, replacing the previously applied National Muffler test.

Justice Scalia dissents, arguing that the majority’s reading of the phrase “applicable monthly expense amounts” improperly imports IRS Collection Financial Standards and that the plain meaning of the statute gives any debtor who owns a car, regardless of loan payments, the car‑ownership allowance.

Justice Thomas dissents from the denial of certiorari, arguing that lower courts are improperly relying on Scarborough v. United States to uphold 18 U.S.C. § 931(a) without applying Lopez’s Commerce Clause test.