| Type |
Case |
Citation |
Issues |
Joined by |
Other opinions |
| 1-01
|
Mayo Foundation for Medical Ed. and Research v. United States • [full text] |
01562 U.S. 44 (2011)
|
Social Security • Federal Insurance Contributions Act • student tax exemptions • United States administrative law • Chevron deference |
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
|
| Roberts' opinion for a unanimous Court upheld a regulation issued by the Treasury Department that categorically excluded those working at least 40 hours a week from eligibility for a student worker exemption from Social Security taxes. The regulation was challenged by the Mayo Foundation, which employed medical residents as part of their continuing hands-on education. The Court clarified that Chevron deference applied to the Treasury Department's regulation, notwithstanding prior decisions to the contrary that had applied a less deferential standard to tax regulations. Applying Chevron, the Court found that the statutory exemption was silent on the definition of "student" and its specific application to medical residents, which left the issue to the Treasury Department as the implementing agency, and that the full-time student regulation was a reasonable construction of the statute . |
| 1-02
|
FCC v. AT&T Inc. |
02562 U.S. 397 (2011)
|
Freedom of Information Act • applicability to corporations of personal privacy exemption |
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
|
|
| 1-03
|
Snyder v. Phelps |
03562 U.S. 443 (2011)
|
First Amendment • free speech • intentional infliction of emotional distress |
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
|
|
| 4-04
|
Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart |
04563 U.S. 247 (2011)
|
Eleventh Amendment • sovereign immunity • federal action by state agency against state officials for federal law violation • Supremacy Clause • Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 • Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act |
Alito |
|
|
| 1-05
|
Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting |
05563 U.S. 582 (2011)
|
Immigration Reform and Control Act • Legal Arizona Workers Act • state requirement that businesses use E-Verify • suspension or revocation of business licenses for hiring unauthorized aliens • federal preemption |
Scalia, Kennedy, Alito; Thomas (in part) |
|
|
| 1-06
|
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. |
06563 U.S. 776 (2011)
|
patent law • University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980 • vesting of federally funded patents in inventors or contractors |
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
|
|
| 1-07
|
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. |
07563 U.S. 776 (2011)
|
securities fraud • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Rule 10b-5 • class certification • loss causation |
Unanimous |
|
|
| 1-08
|
Stern v. Marshall |
08564 U.S. 462 (2011)
|
Article III • bankruptcy court authority to decide state law counterclaim |
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
|
|
| 4-09
|
Freeman v. United States |
09564 U.S. 522 (2011)
|
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 • sentence reduction due to retroactive amendment of Sentencing Guidelines • plea bargain under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 |
Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
|
|
| 4-10
|
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride |
10564 U.S. 685 (2011)
|
Federal Employers' Liability Act • railroad causation of employee injury |
Scalia, Kennedy, Alito |
|
|
| 1-11
|
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett |
11564 U.S. 721 (2011)
|
campaign finance reform • matching funds provision in clean elections system • First Amendment |
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
|
|
| 5-12
|
Gray v. Kelly • [full text] |
12564 U.S. 1301 (2011)
|
|
|
|
| Roberts denied an application for a stay. The petitioner sought certiorari of his state court conviction. The stay he sought, however, was not of the state court judgment, but of the briefing schedule entered by the district court in which he had separately initiated habeas proceedings. Roberts ruled that the petitioner had not established that he was entitled to that relief. |
