U.S. Supreme Court
The United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal exception, 28 U. S. C. §2680(b), can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail.
U.S. Supreme Court
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 91 Stat. 1626, does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
U.S. Supreme Court
Because the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the award of a new trial based on reasoning that departed from the strict standards that govern the grant of federal habeas relief to prisoners convicted in state court prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Court grants the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari and reverses the judgment below.
U.S. Supreme Court
Delaware law requiring a plaintiff suing for medical malpractice to provide an affidavit from a medical professional attesting to the suit’s merit, Del. Code, Tit. 18, §6853(a)(1), conflicts with a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and does not apply in federal court.
U.S. Supreme Court
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1)’s reasonable-time limit applies to a motion alleging that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4).
U.S. Supreme Court
Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.
U.S. Supreme Court
Under the standard set in Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400, the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance; that standard was met here.
U.S. Supreme Court
Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both 18 U. S. C. §§924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for a single act that violates both provisions—therefore, one act that violates both may spawn only one conviction; the part of the Second Circuit’s judgment that held otherwise is reversed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Title 28 U. S. C. §2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file a second or successive §2255 motion for postconviction relief, and §2244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under §2255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Because a State lacks the power to confer immunity from federal causes of action, the Louisiana Court of Appeal’s judgment that a plaintiff’s federal claims are barred by a Louisiana statute immunizing health care providers from civil liability during public health emergencies is reversed.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
The Fourth Circuit departed from the principle of party presentation and abused its discretion in granting a new trial.
U.S. Supreme Court
A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to meet his accusers face to face may not be denied without case-specific findings of necessity, notwithstanding Mississippi’s right-to-screening statute, Miss. Code Ann. §99–43–101(2)(g).
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court