Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (decided June 16, 1975): with abortion now legal with Roe v. Wade, First Amendment violated by statute criminalizing advertising for abortions
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (decided June 16, 2014): pro-life group making pre-enforcement challenge to law prohibiting false statements during election campaigns alleged enough “imminent” (as opposed to “chimerical”) harm to create “case or controversy” allowing suit to go forward (here, they had falsely claimed that a Congressman had voted for taxpayer-funded abortions) (law eventually struck as in violation of First Amendment, 814 F.3d 466) (BTW he lost the election)
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, 579 U.S. 197 (decided June 16, 2016): court doesn’t have to award attorney’s fees (as is allowed by Copyright Act) if losing party pursued reasonably strong argument (defendant bought plaintiff's textbooks in Thailand and resold them in the U.S. for far less than what plaintiff was charging for them here; he won on his defense of the “first sale doctrine” -- any purchaser of a book can re-sell -- but copyright holder’s position was also reasonable)
Universal Health Services v. United States, 579 U.S. 176 (decided June 16, 2016): parents of Medicaid-receiving teenager who died because of misprescribed drug given by uncertified doctor could pursue qui tam (“private attorney general”) action against health provider under False Claims Act (defrauding government by submitting false certifications for Medicaid reimbursement)
United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (decided June 16, 2023): Government can move to dismiss qui tam suit if suit does not advance governmental interest (suit under False Claims Act alleged hospital overcharging Medicare) (AG showed that costs of litigation would outweigh recoupment and possibly require disclosure of privileged health information)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (decided June 16, 2011): illustrates the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule: admitting evidence obtained during search that was legal at the time (police can search passenger compartment of arrestee’s car without further suspicion needed, New York v. Belton, 1981, but later held illegal, Arizona v. Gant, 2009)
Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453 (decided June 16, 2023): requirement in 18 U.S.C. §924(c) (using firearm in course of crime of violence or drug trafficking) that sentencing must be consecutive with any other crime does not apply to sentencing under later-added subjection (j) (firearm is used in murder or manslaughter); sentence can be concurrent
Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (decided June 16, 2003): rejecting defendant non-resident’s argument that ordinance against loitering in public housing development was facially overbroad under First Amendment Freedom of Association
Allen v. St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co., 230 U.S. 553 (decided June 16, 1913): state commission’s rate for intrastate tariff was not confiscatory “taking” because rationally based on proportion of railroad’s interstate vs. intrastate business
United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745 (decided June 16, 1947): Tucker Act claim (compensation for a Fifth Amendment “taking”) for land lost due to flooding from government-built dam accrued not when water began to rise but when it stopped rising
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (decided June 16, 1958): passport cannot be conditioned on denying Communist Party affiliation; right to travel is a “liberty” protected by Due Process clause of the the Fifth Amendment; Douglas writes for a 5 - 4 Court
NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (decided June 16, 1969): showing of signed, single-purpose authorization cards required employer to bargain with nascent union
Comments