Volume 487 — United States Reports

New York City's Human Rights Law forbids discrimination based on race, creed, sex, and other grounds by any "place of public… Held: Appellant, a nonprofit">nonprofit association consisting of a consortium of 125 other private New York clubs and associations, has standing to challenge Local Law 63's constitutionality in this Court on behalf of its members, since those members "would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right" under Hunt v. Washington Apple…

Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court further refined the test for determining whether federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state law as opposed to federal law under the Erie doctrine. The question in Stewart was whether the federal venue transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), occupied the field or whether Alabama law's unfavorable stance towards forum-selection clauses should instead be applied. The Court held that the federal statute governed the District Court's decision whether to give effect to the forum-selection clause.

Respondent, a private physician under contract with North Carolina to provide orthopedic services at a state-prison hospital on a part-time basis, treated petitioner for a leg injury sustained while… Held: A physician who is under contract with the State to provide medical services to inmates at a state-prison hospital on a part-time basis acts "under color of state law," within the meaning of § 1983, when he treats an inmate. Pp. 48-57.

Under Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:1, qualified lawyers admitted to practice in another State may be admitted to the Virginia Bar "on motion," that is, without taking… Held: Virginia's residency requirement for admission to the State's bar without examination violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Pp. 64-70. (a) A nonresident's interest in practicing law on terms of substantial equality with those enjoyed by residents is a privilege protected by the Clause.

Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., and others (ARM) filed suit against Government officials and petitioners, the United States Catholic Conference and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, to… Held: A nonparty witness may defend against a civil contempt adjudication by challenging the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction, and is not limited to the contention that the court lacked even colorable jurisdiction to hear the suit.

Petitioner was charged with the capital offense of first-degree murder. An Oklahoma statute provides both parties in capital trials with nine peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Held: Although the trial court erred in failing to remove Huling for cause under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776, and Wainwright v.

Held: however, that testimony of that sort may not be divorced from the person who speaks it. The questions the Government wished to ask would have required Curcio to disclose his own knowledge, and as a matter of law his responses could not be alienated from him and attributed to the labor union.

Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that a state notice-of-claim statute could not be applied to a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.

At petitioner's Texas capital murder trial, his principal defense was that he had been mistakenly identified, and that—even if he was the person who stabbed the… Held: The judgment is affirmed. 823 F.2d 98 (CA5 1987), affirmed. Justice WHITE, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice SCALIA, and Justice KENNEDY, concluded that the trial court's refusal to give petitioner's requested special instructions did not violate his Eighth Amendment right to present mitigating evidence.

Pursuant to a subpoena, petitioner, the target of a federal grand jury investigation, produced some records as to accounts at foreign banks, but invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against… Held: Because the consent directive here is not testimonial in nature, compelling petitioner to sign it does not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 206-218.

Held: in sum, that our decision in Manhart had placed employers on notice that pension benefits, not just contributions, must be calculated without reliance on sex-based actuarial tables. Id., at 1547-1548, 1551. We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 814 (1987), to. consider these issues, and we reverse. Ill . Two aspects of retroactivity análysis are presented by this case.

The District Court dismissed an indictment against petitioners and others on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct and irregularities in the grand jury… Held: As a general matter, a district court may not dismiss an indictment for errors in grand jury proceedings unless such errors prejudiced the defendants. Pp. 254-257. (a) A federal court may not invoke its supervisory power to circumvent the harmless-error inquiry prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a).

Houston v. Lacks, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a letter addressed to a court is considered "filed" for the court's purposes when the incarcerated person gives the letter to the mail department.

Held: and told petitioner that because he had been indicted he was being transferred to the Cook County jail. Petitioner asked Gresham which of the gang members had been charged with Jackson’s murder, and upon learning that one particular Vice Lord had been omitted from the indictments, asked: “[W]hy wasn’t he indicted, he did everything.” App. 7.

Petitioner is one of 16 plaintiffs whose complaint seeking intervention in an employment discrimination action against respondent Oakland Scavenger Co. (hereafter respondent) was dismissed by the… Held: Failure to file a notice of appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)'s requirement that the notice "specify the party or parties taking the appeal" presents a jurisdictional bar to the appeal.

Held: and the Government does not dispute here, that his failure to appear for a trial scheduled with only one day remaining in the indictment-to-trial period does not restart the full 70-day *340 speedy trial clock. See 821 F. 2d, at 1380-1383 . 11 That respondent’s flight does not restart the clock, however, goes only to whether there has been a violation of the Act, and not to what the appropriate remedy should be.

Appellant (MP & L), a subsidiary of Middle South Utilities (MSU), engages in wholesale sales of electricity, which are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and in retail… Held: The FERC proceedings pre-empted a prudence inquiry by the MPSC.

Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning what constitutes a claim "arising out of" an assault or battery within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Supreme Court held that the FTCA's intentional tort exception did not apply.

Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established limitations on implied causes of action. The Court determined that a cause of action would not be implied for the violation of rights where the U.S. Congress had already provided a remedy for the violation of rights at issue, even if the remedy was inadequate.

Under North Dakota statutes, thinly populated school districts are authorized to "reorganize" themselves into larger districts so that education can be… Held: There is no merit to appellees' contention that, because Mrs. Kadrmas signed contracts for schoolbus service, and made partial payments thereon, after the State Supreme Court's decision, and because Sarita has since been "enjoying the benefits" of the bus service, appellants are estopped from pursuing this appeal.

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech was not facially violated. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, concluded that the ordinance was constitutionally valid because it was narrowly tailored to meet a "substantial and justifiable" interest in the state; left open "ample alternative channels of communication"; and was content-neutral.

Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that government contractors are immune from liability for design defects in military equipment.

Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree". In Murray, the Court ruled that when officers conduct two searches, the first unlawful and the second lawful, evidence seized during the second search is admissible if the second search "is genuinely independent of [the] earlier one."

One of petitioner's predecessors as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development decided not to implement an "operating subsidy" program… Held: In reviewing the District Court's determination that the Secretary's position was not "substantially justified," the Court of Appeals correctly applied an abuse-of-discretion standard, rather than a de novo standard of review. Neither a clear statutory prescription nor a historical tradition requires this choice of standards.

Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Adolescent Family Life Act.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that determined the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional. Morrison also set important precedent determining the scope of Congress's ability to encumber the President's authority to remove Officers of the United States from office. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Supreme Court distinguished Morrison as a narrow exception applying only to inferior officers.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights", and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

The North Carolina Charitable Solicitations Act defines the prima facie "reasonable fee" that a professional fundraiser may charge according to a… Held: North Carolina's three-tiered definition of "reasonable fees" unconstitutionally infringes upon freedom of speech. The solicitation of charitable contributions is protected speech, and using percentages to decide the legality of the fundraiser's fee is not narrowly tailored to the State's interest in preventing fraud.

Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), was the first case since the moratorium on capital punishment was lifted in the United States in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a minor on grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment." The holding in Thompson was expanded on by Roper v. Simmons (2005), where the Supreme Court extended the "evolving standards" rationale to those under 18 years old.

The federal contribution (referred to as a "reimbursement") to a State's Medicaid program takes the form of advances based on the State's estimate of its future expenditures for covered services. Held: however, that the District Court had jurisdiction to review the Board's disallowance decisions and to grant declaratory and injunctive relief having prospective effect, and affirmed the declaratory judgment on the merits.

United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and involuntary servitude.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case on United States labor law, concerning proof of disparate treatment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988), was a 1988 United States Supreme Court case concerning the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court held that the placement of a screen between a defendant and the witnesses testifying against him, making it impossible for the witnesses to see him during their testimony, violated the Confrontation Clause. Accordingly, it reversed the conviction of the appellant, John Coy, who had been convicted of two counts of lascivious acts with a child.