View source for Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/testcases

{{Testcases}}

{{test case|_format=columns|_collapsible=yes|_title=Daniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States
  |Litigants=Hylton v. United States
  |ArgueDate=February 23
  |ArgueYear=1796
  |DecideDate=March 8
  |DecideYear=1796
  |FullName=Daniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States
  |USVol=3
  |USPage=171
  |ParallelCitations=3 [[Alexander J. Dallas (statesman)|Dall.]] 171; 1 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed.]] 556; 1796 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 397; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2155
  |Prior=Defendant convicted, Circuit Court for the District of Virginia
  |Subsequent=None
  |Holding=A tax on the possession of goods is not a "direct" tax, which must be apportioned under Article I of the Constitution.
  |SCOTUS=1796-1798
  |Seriatim=Chase
  |Seriatim2=Paterson
  |Seriatim3=Iredell
  |Seriatim4=Wilson
  |NotParticipating=Ellsworth and Cushing
  |LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. art. I]]
  |Related=Related text???
}}

{{test case|_format=columns|_collapsible=yes|_title=William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
| ArgueDate=February 11
| ArgueYear=1803
| DecideDate=February 24
| DecideYear=1803
| FullName=William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
| USVol=5
| USPage=137
| Citation=1 Cranch 137; 2 [[L. Ed.]] 60; 1803 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 352
| Prior=Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
| Holding=Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution permits.
| SCOTUS=1801-1804
| Majority=Marshall
| JoinMajority=Paterson, Chase, Washington{{efn|name=4-0|Due to illnesses, Justices [[William Cushing]] and [[Alfred Moore]] did not sit for oral argument or participate in the Court's decision.}}
| LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. arts. I]], [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|III]]; [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] § 13
}}

{{test case|_format=columns|_collapsible=yes|_title=E. Allgeyer & Co. v. Louisiana
| Litigants         = Allgeyer v. Louisiana
| ArgueDate         = January 6
| ArgueYear         = 1897
| DecideDate        = March 1
| DecideYear        = 1897
| FullName          = E. Allgeyer & Co. v. Louisiana
| USVol             = 165
| USPage            = 578
| ParallelCitations = 17 S. Ct. 427; 41 L. Ed. 832; 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1998
| Prior             = Trial court held for defendant, Allgeyer. Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. 48 La. Ann. 104.
| Holding           = {{ordered list |style=text-align: left;
    |1=States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state for acts performed outside the state.
    |2=States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state by written communication, even if the property to be insured is within the state.
    }}
| SCOTUS            = 1896-1897
| Majority          = Peckham
| JoinMajority      = ''unanimous''
| LawsApplied       = [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]
}}

{{test case|_format=columns|_collapsible=yes|_title=Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States
  | Litigants               = Schenck v. United States
  | ArgueDateA              = January 8
  | ArgueDateB              = 10
  | ArgueYear               = 1919
  | DecideDate              = March 3
  | DecideYear              = 1919
  | FullName                = Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States
  | USVol                   = 249
  | USPage                  = 47
  | Citation                = 63 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed.]] 470; 1919 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 2223; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 26; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 149
  | Prior                   = Defendants convicted, [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania|E.D. Pa.]]; motion for new trial denied, 253 [[Federal Reporter|F.]] 212 (E.D. Pa. 1918)
  | Subsequent              = None
  | Holding                 = Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
  | SCOTUS                  = 1916-1921
  | Majority                = Holmes
  | JoinMajority            = ''unanimous''
  | LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]]; {{usc|50|33}}
  |Overruled=
*''[[Brandenburg v. Ohio]]'', 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
}}

{{test case|_format=columns|_collapsible=yes|_title=United States v. Behrman
  |Litigants=United States v. Behrman
  |ArgueDate=March 7
  |ArgueYear=1922
  |DecideDate=March 27
  |DecideYear=1922
  |FullName=United States v. Behrman
  |USVol=258
  |USPage=280
  |Citation=
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=
  |SCOTUS=1921–1922
  |Majority=
  |JoinMajority=
  |Concurrence=
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Concurrence2=
  |JoinConcurrence2=
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
  |Dissent=
  |JoinDissent=
  |Dissent2=
  |JoinDissent2=
  |LawsApplied=
}}
{{test case|_format=columns|_collapsible=yes|_title=Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company
  |Litigants=Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company
  |ArgueDateA=May 1
  |ArgueDateB=2
  |ArgueYear=1941
  |DecideDate=June 2
  |DecideYear=1941
  |FullName=Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company, Inc.
  |USVol=313
  |USPage=487
  |Citation=61 S. Ct. 1020; 85 L. Ed. 1477; 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1298; 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=
  |SCOTUS=
  |Majority=Reed
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied=
}}

{|
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
 |Litigants=Brown v. Board of Education
 |ArgueDate=December 9
 |ArgueYear=1952
 |ReargueDate=December 8
 |ReargueYear=1953
 |DecideDate=May 17
 |DecideYear=1954
 |FullName=Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al.
 |USVol=347
 |USPage=483
 |ParallelCitations=74 S. Ct. 686; 98 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed.]] 873; 1954 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 [[American Law Reports|A.L.R.2d]] 1180
 |Advocates for Appellant= [[Thurgood Marshall]], [[Robert L. Carter]], [[Spottswood Robinson III]]
 |Advocates for Appellee= Paul E. Wilson, [[John W. Davis]], [[Justin Moore|T. Justin Moore]]
 |Prior=Judgment for defendants, 98 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/98/797/1899646/ 797] ([[United States District Court for the District of Kansas|D. Kan.]] 1951)
 |Subsequent=Judgment on relief, {{ussc|349|294|1955}} (''Brown II''); on remand, 139 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/139/468/2373421/ 468] (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 [[Federal Rules Decisions|F.R.D.]] 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/671/1290/2595170/ 1290] (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/892/851/72610/ 851] ([[10th Cir.]] 1989); vacated, {{ussc|503|978|1992}} (''Brown III''); judgment reinstated, 978 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/978/585/183141/ 585] (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/56/1212/2449313/ 1212] (D. Kan. 1999)
 |Holding=Segregation of students in [[Public school (government funded)|public schools]] violates the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
 |SCOTUS=1953-1954
 |Majority=Warren
 |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
 |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]
 |Overturned previous case= ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896)<br>''[[Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education]]'' (1899)<br>''[[Berea College v. Kentucky]]'' (1908)
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 |Litigants=Brown v. Board of Education
 |ArgueDate=December 9
 |ArgueYear=1952
 |ReargueDate=December 8
 |ReargueYear=1953
 |DecideDate=May 17
 |DecideYear=1954
 |FullName=Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al.
 |USVol=347
 |USPage=483
 |ParallelCitations=74 S. Ct. 686; 98 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed.]] 873; 1954 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 [[American Law Reports|A.L.R.2d]] 1180
 |Advocates for Appellant= [[Thurgood Marshall]], [[Robert L. Carter]], [[Spottswood Robinson III]]
 |Advocates for Appellee= Paul E. Wilson, [[John W. Davis]], [[Justin Moore|T. Justin Moore]]
 |Prior=Judgment for defendants, 98 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/98/797/1899646/ 797] ([[United States District Court for the District of Kansas|D. Kan.]] 1951)
 |Subsequent=Judgment on relief, {{ussc|349|294|1955}} (''Brown II''); on remand, 139 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/139/468/2373421/ 468] (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 [[Federal Rules Decisions|F.R.D.]] 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/671/1290/2595170/ 1290] (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/892/851/72610/ 851] ([[10th Cir.]] 1989); vacated, {{ussc|503|978|1992}} (''Brown III''); judgment reinstated, 978 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/978/585/183141/ 585] (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/56/1212/2449313/ 1212] (D. Kan. 1999)
 |Holding=Segregation of students in [[Public school (government funded)|public schools]] violates the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
 |SCOTUS=1953-1954
 |Majority=Warren
 |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
 |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]
 |Overturned previous case= ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896)<br>''[[Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education]]'' (1899)<br>''[[Berea College v. Kentucky]]'' (1908)
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=North Carolina v. Pearce
  |ArgueDate=February 24
  |ArgueYear=1969
  |DecideDate=June 23
  |DecideYear=1969
  |FullName=State of North Carolina et al. v. Clifton A. Pearce v. William S. Rice
  |USVol=395
  |USPage=711
  |Citation= 89 S. Ct. 2072; 23 L. Ed. 2d 656
  |Prior=In the first case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, 274 F.Supp. 116, granted writ and the warden appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 396 F.2d 499, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 258, 21 L.Ed.2d 258.  In the second case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh, ordered the prisoner's release and appeal was taken. The United States Court of Appeals, 397 F.2d 253, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 932, 89 S.Ct. 292, 21 L.Ed.2d 268.
  |Subsequent=limited by '''''Alabama v. Smith''''', 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. Ct. 2201, 104 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1989) 
  |Holding= Trial court denied respondents' due process right by imposing a heavier sentence to punish respondent for having his original conviction set aside.
  |SCOTUS=1969b
  |Limited=''[[Alabama v. Smith]]'', 490 U.S. 794 (1989)
  |Majority= Stewart, joined by Brennan and Warren
  |Concurrence = Doulas, joined by Marshall
  |Concurrence2 = White
  |Concurrence/Dissent=Black
  |Concurrence/Dissent2=Harlan
  |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]; [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. V]]
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=North Carolina v. Pearce
  |ArgueDate=February 24
  |ArgueYear=1969
  |DecideDate=June 23
  |DecideYear=1969
  |FullName=State of North Carolina et al. v. Clifton A. Pearce v. William S. Rice
  |USVol=395
  |USPage=711
  |Citation= 89 S. Ct. 2072; 23 L. Ed. 2d 656
  |Prior=In the first case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, 274 F.Supp. 116, granted writ and the warden appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 396 F.2d 499, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 258, 21 L.Ed.2d 258.  In the second case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh, ordered the prisoner's release and appeal was taken. The United States Court of Appeals, 397 F.2d 253, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 932, 89 S.Ct. 292, 21 L.Ed.2d 268.
  |Subsequent=limited by '''''Alabama v. Smith''''', 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. Ct. 2201, 104 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1989) 
  |Holding= Trial court denied respondents' due process right by imposing a heavier sentence to punish respondent for having his original conviction set aside.
  |SCOTUS=1969b
  |Limited=''[[Alabama v. Smith]]'', 490 U.S. 794 (1989)
  |Majority= Stewart, joined by Brennan and Warren
  |Concurrence = Doulas, joined by Marshall
  |Concurrence2 = White
  |Concurrence/Dissent=Black
  |Concurrence/Dissent2=Harlan
  |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]; [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. V]]
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Ashe v. Swenson
  |ArgueDate=November 13
  |ArgueYear=1969
  |DecideDate=April 6
  |DecideYear=1970
  |FullName=Bob Fred Ashe, Petitioner v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
  |USVol=397
  |USPage=436
  |ParallelCitations=90 S. Ct. 1189; 25 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 469; 1970 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 54 
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Retrying an acquitted defendant for the same offense by citing a different victim is an unconstitutional [[double jeopardy]].
  |SCOTUS=1969c
  |Plurality=Stewart
  |JoinPlurality=Douglas, White, Marshall
  |Concurrence=Black
  |Concurrence2=Harlan
  |Concurrence3=Brennan
  |JoinConcurrence3=Douglas, Marshall
  |Dissent=Burger
  |LawsApplied=
  |Overturned previous case = {{ussc|name=Hoag v. New Jersey|volume=356|page=464|year=1958}}
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Ashe v. Swenson
  |ArgueDate=November 13
  |ArgueYear=1969
  |DecideDate=April 6
  |DecideYear=1970
  |FullName=Bob Fred Ashe, Petitioner v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
  |USVol=397
  |USPage=436
  |ParallelCitations=90 S. Ct. 1189; 25 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 469; 1970 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 54 
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Retrying an acquitted defendant for the same offense by citing a different victim is an unconstitutional [[double jeopardy]].
  |SCOTUS=1969c
  |Plurality=Stewart
  |JoinPlurality=Douglas, White, Marshall
  |Concurrence=Black
  |Concurrence2=Harlan
  |Concurrence3=Brennan
  |JoinConcurrence3=Douglas, Marshall
  |Dissent=Burger
  |LawsApplied=
  |Overturned previous case = {{ussc|name=Hoag v. New Jersey|volume=356|page=464|year=1958}}
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
  |ArgueDate=March 24
  |ArgueYear=2009
  |ReargueDate=September 9
  |ReargueYear=2009
  |DecideDate=January 21
  |DecideYear=2010
  |FullName= Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
  |USVol=558
  |USPage=310
  | ParallelCitations = 130 S. Ct. 876; 175 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 753; 2010 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 766
|Docket=08-205
  |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/argument/
  |OralReargument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/reargument/
  |OpinionAnnouncement=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/opinion/
  |Prior=''Motion for preliminary injunction denied'', 530 [[F. Supp. 2d]] 274 ([[D.D.C.]] 2008); ''probable jurisdiction noted'', 555 U.S. 1028 (2008).
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding= The provisions of the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
  |SCOTUS=2009–2010
  |Majority=Kennedy
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
  |Concurrence=Roberts
  |JoinConcurrence=Alito
  |Concurrence2=Scalia
  |JoinConcurrence2=Alito; Thomas (in part)
  |Concurrence/Dissent=Stevens
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
  |Concurrence/Dissent2=Thomas
  | Dissent = 
| JoinDissent = 
| Dissent2 = 
| JoinDissent2 = 
|LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]], [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]]
|Overturned previous case= ''[[Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce]]'', 1990. ''[[McConnell v. FEC]]'', 2003 (in part).
|Citation=130 S.Ct. 876
  }}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
  |ArgueDate=March 24
  |ArgueYear=2009
  |ReargueDate=September 9
  |ReargueYear=2009
  |DecideDate=January 21
  |DecideYear=2010
  |FullName= Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
  |USVol=558
  |USPage=310
  | ParallelCitations = 130 S. Ct. 876; 175 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 753; 2010 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 766
|Docket=08-205
  |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/argument/
  |OralReargument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/reargument/
  |OpinionAnnouncement=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/opinion/
  |Prior=''Motion for preliminary injunction denied'', 530 [[F. Supp. 2d]] 274 ([[D.D.C.]] 2008); ''probable jurisdiction noted'', 555 U.S. 1028 (2008).
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding= The provisions of the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
  |SCOTUS=2009–2010
  |Majority=Kennedy
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
  |Concurrence=Roberts
  |JoinConcurrence=Alito
  |Concurrence2=Scalia
  |JoinConcurrence2=Alito; Thomas (in part)
  |Concurrence/Dissent=Stevens
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
  |Concurrence/Dissent2=Thomas
  | Dissent = 
| JoinDissent = 
| Dissent2 = 
| JoinDissent2 = 
|LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]], [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]]
|Overturned previous case= ''[[Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce]]'', 1990. ''[[McConnell v. FEC]]'', 2003 (in part).
|Citation=130 S.Ct. 876
  }}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Crawford v. Washington
  |ArgueDate=November 10
  |ArgueYear=2003
  |DecideDate=March 8
  |DecideYear=2004
  |FullName=Michael D. Crawford v. Washington
  |USVol=541
  |USPage=36
  |ParallelCitations=124 S. Ct. 1354; 158 L. Ed. 2d 177; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1838; 72 U.S.L.W. 4229; 63 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1077; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181
  |Prior=Defendant convicted, Thurston County Superior Court, 11-19-99; reversed, 107 Wn. App. 1025 (2001); reversed, conviction reinstated, 54 P.3d 656 (Wash. 2002); certiorari granted, 539 U.S. 914 (2003)
  |Subsequent=None
  |Holding=The use at trial of out of court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.
  |SCOTUS=1994-2005
  |Majority=Scalia
  |JoinMajority=Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
  |Concurrence=Rehnquist
  |JoinConcurrence=O'Connor
  |LawsApplied=[[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. VI]]
  |Overturned previous case=''[[Ohio v. Roberts]]'' (1980)
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Crawford v. Washington
  |ArgueDate=November 10
  |ArgueYear=2003
  |DecideDate=March 8
  |DecideYear=2004
  |FullName=Michael D. Crawford v. Washington
  |USVol=541
  |USPage=36
  |ParallelCitations=124 S. Ct. 1354; 158 L. Ed. 2d 177; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1838; 72 U.S.L.W. 4229; 63 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1077; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181
  |Prior=Defendant convicted, Thurston County Superior Court, 11-19-99; reversed, 107 Wn. App. 1025 (2001); reversed, conviction reinstated, 54 P.3d 656 (Wash. 2002); certiorari granted, 539 U.S. 914 (2003)
  |Subsequent=None
  |Holding=The use at trial of out of court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.
  |SCOTUS=1994-2005
  |Majority=Scalia
  |JoinMajority=Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
  |Concurrence=Rehnquist
  |JoinConcurrence=O'Connor
  |LawsApplied=[[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. VI]]
  |Overturned previous case=''[[Ohio v. Roberts]]'' (1980)
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Sykes v. United States
  |ArgueDate=January 12
  |ArgueYear=2011
  |DecideDate=June 9
  |DecideYear=2011
  |FullName=Sykes v. United States
  |Docket=09-11311
  |Docket2=
  |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_11311/argument
  |USVol=564
  |USPage=1
  |Citation=
  |Prior=Sentence enhancement affirmed, 598 F.3d 334 ([[7th Cir.]] 2010); certiorari granted, 561 U. S. ___ (2010)
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
  |SCOTUS=2010-2016
  |Majority=Kennedy
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor
  |Concurrence=Thomas
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Dissent=Scalia
  |JoinDissent=
  |Dissent2=Kagan
  |JoinDissent2=Ginsburg
  |Overruled=''[[Johnson v. United States (2015)|Johnson v. United States]]'' (2015)
  |LawsApplied=
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Sykes v. United States
  |ArgueDate=January 12
  |ArgueYear=2011
  |DecideDate=June 9
  |DecideYear=2011
  |FullName=Sykes v. United States
  |Docket=09-11311
  |Docket2=
  |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_11311/argument
  |USVol=564
  |USPage=1
  |Citation=
  |Prior=Sentence enhancement affirmed, 598 F.3d 334 ([[7th Cir.]] 2010); certiorari granted, 561 U. S. ___ (2010)
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
  |SCOTUS=2010-2016
  |Majority=Kennedy
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor
  |Concurrence=Thomas
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Dissent=Scalia
  |JoinDissent=
  |Dissent2=Kagan
  |JoinDissent2=Ginsburg
  |Overruled=''[[Johnson v. United States (2015)|Johnson v. United States]]'' (2015)
  |LawsApplied=
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
 | Litigants = Fisher v. University of Texas
 | ArgueDate = October 10
 | ArgueYear = 2012
 | DecideDate= June 24
 | DecideYear= 2013
 | FullName = Abigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.
 | USVol = 570
 | USPage = ___
 | ParallelCitations = 
 | Docket = 11-345
 | OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_345#argument
 | Prior = 
 | Subsequent = See ''[[Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)]]''
 | Holding = The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to apply [[strict scrutiny]] in its decision affirming the admissions policy. The decision is vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration.
 | SCOTUS = 2010-2016
 | Majority = Kennedy
 | JoinMajority = Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
 | Concurrence = Scalia
 | Concurrence2 = Thomas
 | Dissent = Ginsburg
 | NotParticipating = Kagan
 | LawsApplied = [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]], ''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]''
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 | Litigants = Fisher v. University of Texas
 | ArgueDate = October 10
 | ArgueYear = 2012
 | DecideDate= June 24
 | DecideYear= 2013
 | FullName = Abigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.
 | USVol = 570
 | USPage = ___
 | ParallelCitations = 
 | Docket = 11-345
 | OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_345#argument
 | Prior = 
 | Subsequent = See ''[[Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)]]''
 | Holding = The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to apply [[strict scrutiny]] in its decision affirming the admissions policy. The decision is vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration.
 | SCOTUS = 2010-2016
 | Majority = Kennedy
 | JoinMajority = Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
 | Concurrence = Scalia
 | Concurrence2 = Thomas
 | Dissent = Ginsburg
 | NotParticipating = Kagan
 | LawsApplied = [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]], ''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]''
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Bailey v. United States
  |ArgueDate=October 30
  |ArgueYear=1995
  |DecideDate=December 6
  |DecideYear=1995
  |USVol=516
  |USPage=137
  |FullName=Ronald J. Bailey v. United States of America; Candisha Summerita Robinson v. United States of America
  |Prior=On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  |Holding="Use" of a firearm during or in relation to a drug crime or a crime of violence requires active employment of the firearm and not mere possession.
  |SCOTUS=1994-2005
  |Majority=O'Connor
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied=Act of Nov. 3, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-386, 112 Stat. 3469<br />(codified at {{usc|18|924}}(c))
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Bailey v. United States
  |ArgueDate=October 30
  |ArgueYear=1995
  |DecideDate=December 6
  |DecideYear=1995
  |USVol=516
  |USPage=137
  |FullName=Ronald J. Bailey v. United States of America; Candisha Summerita Robinson v. United States of America
  |Prior=On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  |Holding="Use" of a firearm during or in relation to a drug crime or a crime of violence requires active employment of the firearm and not mere possession.
  |SCOTUS=1994-2005
  |Majority=O'Connor
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied=Act of Nov. 3, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-386, 112 Stat. 3469<br />(codified at {{usc|18|924}}(c))
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Wilson v. Sellers
  |ArgueDate=October 30
  |ArgueYear=2017
  |DecideDate=April 17
  |DecideYear=2018
  |FullName=Marion Wilson v. Eric Sellers, Warden
  |USVol=584
  |USPage=___
  |ParallelCitations=
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=
  |Majority=Breyer
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
  |Dissent=Gorsuch
  |JoinDissent=Thomas, Alito
  |LawsApplied=
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Wilson v. Sellers
  |ArgueDate=October 30
  |ArgueYear=2017
  |DecideDate=April 17
  |DecideYear=2018
  |FullName=Marion Wilson v. Eric Sellers, Warden
  |USVol=584
  |USPage=___
  |ParallelCitations=
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=
  |Majority=Breyer
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
  |Dissent=Gorsuch
  |JoinDissent=Thomas, Alito
  |LawsApplied=
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Glass v. The Sloop Betsey
  |ArgueDate=February 8
  |ArgueDateB=10–12
  |ArgueYear=1794
  |DecideDate=February 18
  |DecideYear=1794
  |FullName=Alexander S. Glass, et al., Appellants v. The Sloop Betsey, et al.
  |USVol=3
  |USPage=6
  |ParallelCitations=3 [[Alexander J. Dallas (statesman)|Dall.]] 6; 1 [[L. Ed.]] 485; 1794 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 103
  |Holding=U.S. Courts have the exclusive right to hear admiralty cases in the U.S.
  |SCOTUS=1789-1792
  |Majority=Jay
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied=
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Glass v. The Sloop Betsey
  |ArgueDate=February 8
  |ArgueDateB=10–12
  |ArgueYear=1794
  |DecideDate=February 18
  |DecideYear=1794
  |FullName=Alexander S. Glass, et al., Appellants v. The Sloop Betsey, et al.
  |USVol=3
  |USPage=6
  |ParallelCitations=3 [[Alexander J. Dallas (statesman)|Dall.]] 6; 1 [[L. Ed.]] 485; 1794 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 103
  |Holding=U.S. Courts have the exclusive right to hear admiralty cases in the U.S.
  |SCOTUS=1789-1792
  |Majority=Jay
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied=
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=United States v. Bormes
  |ArgueDate=October 2
  |ArgueYear=2012
  |DecideDate=November 13
  |DecideYear=2012
  |FullName=United States v. James X. Bormes
  |Docket=11-192
  |USVol=568
  |USPage=___
  |ParallelCitations=
  |OralArgument=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-192.pdf
  |Prior=Motion to dismiss granted, 638 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp. 2d]] 958 ([[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|N.D. Ill.]] 2009); vacated, 626 [[Federal Reporter|F. 3d]] 574, 578 ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Fed. Cir.]] 2010); [[certiorari|cert.]] granted, 565 [[United States Reports|U.S.]] ___ (2012)
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=The Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.
  |SCOTUS=2010-2016
  |Majority=Scalia
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied={{usc|28|1346(a)(2)}} ([[Little Tucker Act]]); {{usc|15|1681}} ''et seq.'' ([[Fair Credit Reporting Act]])
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case 
  |Litigants=United States v. Bormes
  |ArgueDate=October 2
  |ArgueYear=2012
  |DecideDate=November 13
  |DecideYear=2012
  |FullName=United States v. James X. Bormes
  |Docket=11-192
  |USVol=568
  |USPage=___
  |ParallelCitations=
  |OralArgument=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-192.pdf
  |Prior=Motion to dismiss granted, 638 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp. 2d]] 958 ([[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|N.D. Ill.]] 2009); vacated, 626 [[Federal Reporter|F. 3d]] 574, 578 ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Fed. Cir.]] 2010); [[certiorari|cert.]] granted, 565 [[United States Reports|U.S.]] ___ (2012)
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=The Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.
  |SCOTUS=2010-2016
  |Majority=Scalia
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied={{usc|28|1346(a)(2)}} ([[Little Tucker Act]]); {{usc|15|1681}} ''et seq.'' ([[Fair Credit Reporting Act]])
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Smith v. Bolles
  |ArgueDate=October 31
  |ArgueYear=1889
  |DecideDate=November 11
  |DecideYear=1889
  |FullName=Smith v. Bolles
  |USVol=132
  |USPage=125
  |Citation=132 U.S. 125
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio
  |Holding=Defendant is bound to make good the loss sustained, such as the moneys the plaintiff had paid out and interest, and any other outlay legitimately attributable to defendant's fraudulent conduct; but this liability did not include the expected fruits of an unrealized speculation.
  |SCOTUS=1888-1889
  |Majority=Fuller
  |JoinMajority=
  |LawsApplied=
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Smith v. Bolles
  |ArgueDate=October 31
  |ArgueYear=1889
  |DecideDate=November 11
  |DecideYear=1889
  |FullName=Smith v. Bolles
  |USVol=132
  |USPage=125
  |Citation=132 U.S. 125
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio
  |Holding=Defendant is bound to make good the loss sustained, such as the moneys the plaintiff had paid out and interest, and any other outlay legitimately attributable to defendant's fraudulent conduct; but this liability did not include the expected fruits of an unrealized speculation.
  |SCOTUS=1888-1889
  |Majority=Fuller
  |JoinMajority=
  |LawsApplied=
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  |ArgueDate=March 29
  |ArgueYear=1993
  |DecideDate=June 21
  |DecideYear=1993
  |FullName=Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  |USVol=509
  |USPage=209
  |Citation= 509 U.S. 209, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Brown & Williamson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it did not engage in predatory pricing in violation of §2 of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]].
  |SCOTUS=1991-1993
  |Majority=Kennedy
  |JoinMajority=Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas
  |Concurrence=
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Concurrence2=
  |JoinConcurrence2=
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
  |Dissent=Stevens
  |JoinDissent=White, Blackmun
  |Dissent2=
  |JoinDissent2=
  |LawsApplied=[[Clayton Act]] §2
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  |ArgueDate=March 29
  |ArgueYear=1993
  |DecideDate=June 21
  |DecideYear=1993
  |FullName=Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  |USVol=509
  |USPage=209
  |Citation= 509 U.S. 209, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Brown & Williamson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it did not engage in predatory pricing in violation of §2 of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]].
  |SCOTUS=1991-1993
  |Majority=Kennedy
  |JoinMajority=Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas
  |Concurrence=
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Concurrence2=
  |JoinConcurrence2=
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
  |Dissent=Stevens
  |JoinDissent=White, Blackmun
  |Dissent2=
  |JoinDissent2=
  |LawsApplied=[[Clayton Act]] §2
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
  |ArgueDateA=February 25
  |ArgueDateB=26
  |ArgueYear=1959
  |DecideDate=April 6
  |DecideYear=1959
  |FullName=Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
  |USVol=359
  |USPage=207
  |ParallelCitations=
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=A retail chain's persuasion of a number of suppliers not to deal with a competitive retailer is a ''per se'' illegal boycott.
  |Majority=
  |JoinMajority=
  |Concurrence=
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Concurrence2=
  |JoinConcurrence2=
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
  |Dissent=
  |JoinDissent=
  |Dissent2=
  |JoinDissent2=
  |LawsApplied=
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
  |ArgueDateA=February 25
  |ArgueDateB=26
  |ArgueYear=1959
  |DecideDate=April 6
  |DecideYear=1959
  |FullName=Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
  |USVol=359
  |USPage=207
  |ParallelCitations=
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=A retail chain's persuasion of a number of suppliers not to deal with a competitive retailer is a ''per se'' illegal boycott.
  |Majority=
  |JoinMajority=
  |Concurrence=
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Concurrence2=
  |JoinConcurrence2=
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
  |Dissent=
  |JoinDissent=
  |Dissent2=
  |JoinDissent2=
  |LawsApplied=
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
  |ArgueDate=October 31
  |ArgueYear=2016
  |DecideDate=March 22
  |DecideYear=2017
  |FullName=Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al.
  |USVol=580
  |USPage=[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-866_0971.pdf ___]
  |ParallelCitations=
  |Docket=15–866
  |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-866
  |Prior=On Writ of Certiorari to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]]
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Aesthetic design elements on useful articles like clothing are copyrightable if they can be separately identified as art and exist independently of the useful article.
  |SCOTUS=2016
  |Majority=Thomas
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
  |Concurrence=Ginsburg
  |Dissent=Breyer
  |JoinDissent=Kennedy
  |LawsApplied=[[Copyright Act of 1976]] ({{USC|17|101}})
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
  |ArgueDate=October 31
  |ArgueYear=2016
  |DecideDate=March 22
  |DecideYear=2017
  |FullName=Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al.
  |USVol=580
  |USPage=[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-866_0971.pdf ___]
  |ParallelCitations=
  |Docket=15–866
  |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-866
  |Prior=On Writ of Certiorari to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]]
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Aesthetic design elements on useful articles like clothing are copyrightable if they can be separately identified as art and exist independently of the useful article.
  |SCOTUS=2016
  |Majority=Thomas
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
  |Concurrence=Ginsburg
  |Dissent=Breyer
  |JoinDissent=Kennedy
  |LawsApplied=[[Copyright Act of 1976]] ({{USC|17|101}})
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
|Litigants   =Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation
|ArgueDate   =1 November
|ArgueYear   =2006
|DecideDate  =2 April
|DecideYear  =2007
|FullName    =
|USVol       =549
|USPage      =561
|Docket      =05-848
|ParallelCitations=127 S. Ct. 1423; 167 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 295; 2007 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 3784; 75 U.S.L.W. 4167; 63 ERC ([[Bloomberg BNA|BNA]]) 2088; 37 ELR 20076; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 123
|Opinion     =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-848.pdf
|Prior       =On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
|Subsequent  =
|Holding     =The interpretation of a "modification" in the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]], in regards to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Performance Standard, does not require the same regulatory implementation.
|SCOTUS      =2006-2009
|Majority    =Souter
|JoinMajority=Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito; Thomas (all but part III-A)
|Concurrence =Thomas
|LawsApplied =
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants   =Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation
|ArgueDate   =1 November
|ArgueYear   =2006
|DecideDate  =2 April
|DecideYear  =2007
|FullName    =
|USVol       =549
|USPage      =561
|Docket      =05-848
|ParallelCitations=127 S. Ct. 1423; 167 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 295; 2007 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 3784; 75 U.S.L.W. 4167; 63 ERC ([[Bloomberg BNA|BNA]]) 2088; 37 ELR 20076; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 123
|Opinion     =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-848.pdf
|Prior       =On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
|Subsequent  =
|Holding     =The interpretation of a "modification" in the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]], in regards to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Performance Standard, does not require the same regulatory implementation.
|SCOTUS      =2006-2009
|Majority    =Souter
|JoinMajority=Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito; Thomas (all but part III-A)
|Concurrence =Thomas
|LawsApplied =
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
 |Litigants=Goldwater v. Carter
 |DecideDate=December 13
 |DecideYear=1979
 |FullName=Barry Goldwater, et al. v. James Earl Carter, President of the United States, et al.
 |USVol=444
 |USPage=996
 |ParallelCitations=100 S. Ct. 533; 62 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 428; 1979 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 4144
 |Prior=Judgment for defendants, 481 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/481/949/2397673/ 949] ([[D.D.C.]] 1979); reversed, 617 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/617/697/41409/ 697] ([[D.C. Cir.]] 1979)
 |Subsequent=
 |Holding=Whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with Taiwan without Senate approval was a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.
 |SplitOpinion=yes
 |Concurrence=Marshall
 |Concurrence2=Powell
 |Concurrence3=Rehnquist
 |JoinConcurrence3=Burger, Stewart, Stevens
 |Dissent=Blackmun (in part)
 |JoinDissent=White
 |Dissent2=Brennan
 |LawsApplied=[[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Presidential powers|U.S. Const. art. II, sct. II]]
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 |Litigants=Goldwater v. Carter
 |DecideDate=December 13
 |DecideYear=1979
 |FullName=Barry Goldwater, et al. v. James Earl Carter, President of the United States, et al.
 |USVol=444
 |USPage=996
 |ParallelCitations=100 S. Ct. 533; 62 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 428; 1979 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 4144
 |Prior=Judgment for defendants, 481 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/481/949/2397673/ 949] ([[D.D.C.]] 1979); reversed, 617 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/617/697/41409/ 697] ([[D.C. Cir.]] 1979)
 |Subsequent=
 |Holding=Whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with Taiwan without Senate approval was a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.
 |Concurrence=Marshall
 |Concurrence2=Powell
 |Concurrence3=Rehnquist
 |JoinConcurrence3=Burger, Stewart, Stevens
 |Dissent=Blackmun (in part)
 |JoinDissent=White
 |Dissent2=Brennan
 |LawsApplied=[[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Presidential powers|U.S. Const. art. II, sct. II]]
}}
|-
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
  |Litigants=Thompson v. Hebdon
  |DecideDate=November 25
  |DecideYear=2019
  |FullName=David Thompson, et al., v. Heather Hebdon, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, et al.
  |Docket=19–122
  |OralArgument=
  |USVol=589
  |USPage=___
  |ParallelCitations=140 S. Ct. 348; 205 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 245
  |Prior=Judgment for defendants, sub nom. ''Thompson v. Dauphinais'', 217 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp. 3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20161109a73 1023] ([[United States District Court for the District of Alaska|D. Alaska]] 2016); aff'd, 909 [[Federal Reporter|F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20181127145 1027] ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 2018.
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=
  |PerCuriam=yes
  |Statement=Ginsburg
  |LawsApplied=
}}
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Thompson v. Hebdon
  |DecideDate=November 25
  |DecideYear=2019
  |FullName=David Thompson, et al., v. Heather Hebdon, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, et al.
  |Docket=19–122
  |OralArgument=
  |USVol=589
  |USPage=___
  |ParallelCitations=140 S. Ct. 348; 205 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 245
  |Prior=Judgment for defendants, sub nom. ''Thompson v. Dauphinais'', 217 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp. 3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20161109a73 1023] ([[United States District Court for the District of Alaska|D. Alaska]] 2016); aff'd, 909 [[Federal Reporter|F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20181127145 1027] ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 2018.
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=
  |PerCuriam=yes
  |Statement=Ginsburg
  |LawsApplied=
}}
|}

== References ==
{{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}