Kucana v. Holder, 558 U. S. 2 ___ (2010)
R016; No. 08-911; 1/20/10. Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(B)'s
proscription of judicial review of certain immigration decisions applies only to Attorney
General determinations made discretionary by statute, not to determinations declared
discretionary by the Attorney General himself through regulation.
|
South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U. S. 2 ___ (2010)
R017; No. 138, Orig.; 1/20/10. In South Carolina's original action
seeking an equitable apportionment with North Carolina of the Catawba River's
waters, the Catawba River Water Supply Project and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, have
satisfied the appropriate standard for intervention as parties, see New Jersey
v. New York, 345 U. S. 369, 373, but the city of Charlotte, N. C.,
has not.
|
Wood v. Allen, 558 U. S. 2 ___ (2010)
R018; No. 08-9156; 1/20/10. For the purposes of 28 U. S. C.
§2254(d)(2), an Alabama court's conclusion, during postconviction proceedings,
that petitioner's counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present
evidence of his mental deficiencies during his trial's penalty phase was not an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
state-court proceedings.
|
Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 2 ___ (2010)
R019; No. 08-205; 1/21/10. Title 2 U. S. C. §441b's
restrictions on corporate independent expenditures for speech that is an "electioneering
communication" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a
candidate violate the First Amendment, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002's disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid as applied in this case.
|