Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

United States v. Booker

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno

Holding that an injury a plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally" is not a cognizable injury-in-fact

United States v. Salerno

Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"

Allen v. Wright

Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents

Holding that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), effectively abrogated states’ sovereign immunity by incorporating the Fair Labor Standards Act's cause of action against a "public agency," which the FLSA statutorily defined to include "any agency of ... a State, or a political subdivision of a State," 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(x), 216(b)

Valley Forge College v. Americans United

Holding that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees ... is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms"

United States v. Georgia

Holding that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act validly abrogated state sovereign immunity "insofar as [it] create[d] a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment"

Wash. State Grange v. Wa. State Repub. Party

Holding that courts should neither "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it" nor "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied"

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Section 1973 - Transferred

Holding that no change in voting takes effect until precleared

Section 1973c - Transferred

Setting forth the requirements of § 5

Section 1973b - Transferred

Specifying jurisdictions where § 5 applies

Section 1973a - Transferred

Providing that the court need not authorize the appointment of observers if any incidents of denial or abridgement were few in number, corrected promptly and effectively, lack a continuing effect, and lack a reasonable probability of recurrence

Section 1973p - Transferred

Section 51.54 - Discriminatory purpose and effect

Providing that the last "legally enforceable" plan is the benchmark plan for purposes of measuring retrogression

Section 51.23 - Party and jurisdiction responsible for making submissions

Noting that a “State is better able to explain to the Attorney General the purpose and effect of voting changes it enacts than are the individual covered jurisdictions”

Section 51.45 - Request for reconsideration