Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R074; No. 10-179; 6/23/11. Although 28 U. S. C. §157(b)(2)(C) authorized the Bankruptcy Court to enter judgment on a counterclaim filed by the widow of J. Howard Marshall II, Vickie Lynn Marshall (whose estate is the petitioner), against Pierce Marshall (whose estate is the respondent) in Vickie’s bankruptcy proceedings, Article III of the Constitution did not.
|
Freeman v. United States, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R075; No. 09-10245; 6/23/11. The judgment of the Sixth Circuit—which held that, barring a miscarriage of justice or mutual mistake, a defendant who enters into a binding plea bargain under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) cannot benefit from the retroactive reduction of a Sentencing Guidelines prison term under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2)—is reversed, and the case is remanded.
|
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R076; No. 10-779; 6/23/11. Vermont’s Prescription Confidentiality Law—which provides that prescriber-identifying information generally may not be sold by pharmacies and similar entities, disclosed by those entities for marketing purposes, or used for marketing by pharmaceutical manufacturers—imposes content- and speaker-based burdens on expression protected by the First Amendment and is thus subject to heightened judicial scrutiny; the State’s justifications for its law do not withstand heightened scrutiny.
|
PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R077; No. 09-993; 6/23/11. Federal drug regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers directly conflict with, and thus pre-empt, respondents’ state tort-law suits against petitioner drug manufacturers for their alleged failure to provide adequate warning labels for generic metoclopramide.
|
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R078; No. 09-10876; 6/23/11. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made in order to prove a fact at a criminal trial, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification. The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who performed the test and made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.
|
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R079; No. 10-235; 6/23/11. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act does not incorporate “proximate cause” standards developed in nonstatutory common-law tort actions; rather, the proper charge in a FELA case tracks the Act’s language, informing the jury that a defendant railroad “caused or contributed to” a railroad worker’s injury “if [the railroad’s] negligence played a part—no matter how small—in bringing about the injury.”
|
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R080; No. 10-238; 6/27/11. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act’s matching funds scheme—which permits candidates opting to take public funding for their campaigns to receive additional funds when privately funded candidates’ expenditures, combined with the expenditures of specified independent groups, exceed the publicly financed candidate’s allotment—substantially burdens political speech and is not sufficiently justified by a compelling state interest to survive First Amendment scrutiny.
|
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R081; No. 08-1448; 6/27/11. A California law that restricts the sale or rental of violent video games to minors does not comport with the First Amendment.
|
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R082; No. 09-1343. 6/27/11. The judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court—which held that the Federal Constitution permits state courts to assert jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer in a products liability suit as long as the manufacturer knew, or reasonably should have known, that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to them being sold in any of the States—is reversed.
|
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011)
R083; No. 10-76. 6/27/11. Petitioners, three foreign subsidiaries of Goodyear USA, were not amenable to suit in North Carolina on claims unrelated to any activity of petitioners in the forum State.
|
United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011) (per curiam)
R084; No. 09-940; 6/27/11. Because at the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case, the District Court’s juvenile supervision order had expired and respondent was no longer subject to the sex-offender-registration conditions that he sought to challenge on appeal; and because he cannot show that a decision invalidating the District Court’s order would likely redress some collateral consequence of the registration conditions, respondent’s appeal was moot and the Ninth Circuit lacked the authority to decide his case on the merits.
|
Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U. S. 2 ___ (2011) (per curiam)
R085; No. 11-5001; 7/7/11. Petitioner’s applications for stay of execution on the ground that his conviction was obtained in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as well as his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, are denied.
|