Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

June 17, 2025 | SCOTUS Holds Wire Fraud Statute Doesn’t Require Proof Victim Suffered Economic Loss

Category: Supreme Court Decisions

Madison v Alabama – Death Penalty and Dementia

Madison v Alabama – Death Penalty and Dementia

In Madison v Alabama, 586 U. S. ____ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime. However, it may prohibit executing a prisoner even though he suffers ...

Read More
Timbs v. Indiana

SCOTUS Rules Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause Applies to States

In Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ____ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eight Amendments’ ban on excessive fines is applicable to states. The Court’s decision was unanimous. Facts of Timbs v. Indiana Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in ...

Read More
Gray v. Sanders

Gray v. Sanders Established “One Person, One Vote” Redistricting Principle

In Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court established the famous "one person, one vote" principle for legislative districting. “The concept of political equality...can mean only one thing—one person, one vote,” Justice Wi...

Read More
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 586 U. S. ____ (2019)

Unanimous Court Rules Confidential Sales Can Invalidate Patent as Prior Art

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 586 U. S. ____ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a commercial sale to a third party who is required to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale...

Read More
Murdock v Pennsylvania and the Free Exercise Clause

Murdock v Pennsylvania and the Free Exercise Clause

In Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a municipal ordinance that taxed the door-to-door sale of religious merchandise. According to the divided Court, such a tax violated the First Amendment’s Free Exer...

Read More
Stokeling v United States_ Divided Court Rules Necklace Snatching Is Violent Felony Under ACCA

Stokeling v United States: Divided Court Rules Necklace Snatching Is Violent Felony Under ACCA

In Stokeling v United States, 586 U.S. ____ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcom...

Read More
United States v Stitt Clarifies Burglary Under Armed Career Criminal Act

United States v Stitt Clarifies Burglary Under Armed Career Criminal Act

In United States v Stitt, decided on December 10, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the term “burglary,” as used in the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), includes the burglary of any “structure or vehicle that has been adapted or ...

Read More
Mount Lemmon Fire District v Guido 2018

Mount Lemmon Fire District v Guido: Age Discriminations Law Covers All Public Employers

In its first published decision of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applies to state and local governments, regardless of the size. The Court’s decision in Mount Lemmon Fire District...

Read More
Williamson City Planning v Hamilton Bank 1985

Williamson City Planning v Hamilton Bank Limited Where Takings Claims May Be Filed

In Williamson City Planning v Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified where plaintiffs may file Fifth Amendment takings claims. It held that “if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the...

Read More
Preview of SCOTUS October 2018 Term

What’s on Tap for the U.S. Supreme Court? Previewing the October 2018 Term

While it is still unclear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will be comprised of eight members or nine, the justices will begin holding oral arguments for the October 2018 Term in a few short weeks. Starting on October 1st, the Court will hear a number ...

Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. ...
  23. 41

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Considers Birthright Citizenship
by DONALD SCARINCI on June 13, 2025

On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA, Inc., Trump v. Washi...

Read More
SCOTUS Sides with Military Reservist in Differential Pay Dispute
by DONALD SCARINCI on June 5, 2025

In Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, 605 U.S. ____ (2025), a divided U.S. Supreme Court he...

Read More
Will US Supreme Court Allow Religious Charter Schools?
by DONALD SCARINCI on June 3, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a key First Amendment case involving the se...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • SCOTUS Clarifies Bruen in Upholding Federal Gun Law
  • SCOTUS Rules Challenged South Carolina District Is Not a Racial Gerrymander
  • Supreme Court Rejects Strict Criminal Forfeiture Timelines
  • Supreme Court Clarifies “Safety Valve” in Federal Criminal Sentencing Laws

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards


Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising