United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (01-1067) (4/22; 12/2; 3/4) (CA FC; Aff.; 5-4)
Decision; Docket; Findlaw
The White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe may sue the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for money damages for breach of fiduciary duty to manage land held in trust for the tribe but occupied by the Government.
General Civil, Non-Business, Statutory
Majority: [DS] & JPS, SOC, RBG, SGB
Concurrence: [RBG] & SGB
Dissent: [CT] & WHR, AS, CT [The federal statute putting the land in trust for the Tribe cannot fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for damages.]

United States v. Navajo Nation (01-1375) (6/3; 12/2, 3/4) (CA FC; Rev.; 6-3)
Decision; Docket; Findlaw
An Indian tribe cannot sue the United States for a breach of trust under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act.
General Civil, Non-Business, Statutory
Majority: [RBG] & WHR, AS, AMK, CT, SGB
Dissent: [DS] & JPS, SOC [The United States’ obligations under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act are sufficient to allow an Indian tribe to sue for breach of trust.]

Meyer v. Holley (01-1120) (5/20; 12/3, 1/22) (CA9; Rev.; Unan.)
Decision; Docket; Findlaw
The Fair Housing Act, which forbids racial discrimination in the rental or sale of housing, imposes liability for unlawful discrimination on a real estate corporation, but not on its officers or directors.
General Civil; Business; Statutory
Opinion: [SGB] & Unan.

Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship of Keffeler (01-1420) (5/28, 12/3, 2/25) (Wash.; Rev.; Unan.)
Decision; Docket; Findlaw
The state may use the Social Security benefits of children in foster care to reimburse itself for some of the costs of its foster care program consistent with the Social Security Act.
General Civil, Non-Business, Statutory
Opinion: [DS] & Unan.

Scheidler v. NOW, Inc. (01-1118) (4/22; 12/4, 2/26) (CA7; Rev.; 8-1) with Operation Rescue v. NOW, Inc., (01-1119) (4/22; 12/4; 2/26) (CA7; Rev.; 8-1)
Decision; Docket & 01-1118; Findlaw
Abortion protestors’ efforts to interfere with the operation of abortion clinics, though criminal, did not constitute extortion under federal law, and therefore did not violate RICO.
Criminal; Non-Business; Statutory
Majority: [WHR] & SOC, AS, AMK, DS, CT, RBG, SGB
Concurrence: [RBG] & SGB [Other legislation (the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act) now deals with the problem of conspiracies to interfere
with abortion clinics.]
Dissent: [JPS] [RICO has traditionally been construed broadly by the federal
courts to encompass this type of conduct.]

Chavez v. Martinez (01-1444) (6/3; 12/4;5/27) (CA9; Rev.; 6-3)
Decision; Docket; Findlaw
Coercive interrogation of the defendant did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights, because the evidence from the interrogation was not used against him in a criminal case. However, the defendant may be able to pursue a substantive due process claim.
Civil Rights, Non-Business; Constitutional
Plurality: [CT], WHR, SOC, AS [as to Part I]; Majority: [DS], SGB, AMK, RBG, JPS [as to Part II].
Concurrences: in the judgment with respect to Part I [DS] & SGB [Defendant’s
Fifth Amendment rights were not violated, but defendant may pursue
substantive due process claim on remand.]
in the judgment [AS] [Defendant has no Fifth Amendment or substantive
due process claim, and in any event substantive due process claim was
waived]
in part and dissenting in part [JPS] [interrogation violated defendant’s due
process rights]
in part and dissenting in part [AMK] & JPS, RGB [as to Part II and III]
[Coercive interrogation itself violates Fifth Amendment, even if the
evidence is not later introduced in a criminal proceeding]
in part and dissenting in part [RBG].

Boeing Co. v. United States, (01-1209) (5/28; 12/9; 3/4) (CA9; Aff.; 7-2) with United States v. Boeing Sales Corp., (01-1382) (5/28; 12/9; 3/4) (CA9; Aff.; 7-2)
Decision; Docket & 01-1382; Findlaw
The Secretary of the Treasury may classify research and development expenses as non-allocable to Foreign Sales Corporations or Domestic International Sales Corporations.
General Civil, Business, Statutory
Majority: [JPS] & WHR; SOC, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB
Dissent: [CT] & AS

Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (01-1325) (6/10; 12/9; 3/26) (CA9; Aff.; 5-4)
Decision; Docket; Findlaw
A state law requiring that client funds that could not otherwise generate net earnings for the client be deposited in an IOLTA account and used to pay for legal services to the needy does not violate the Takings Clause.
General Civil, Business, Constitutional
Majority: [JPS] & SOC, DS, RBG, SGB
Dissents: [AS] & WHR, AMK, CT [The petitioners are entitled to the fair market value of the interest generated by their funds held in interest on lawyers ’ trust accounts.]
[AMK] [The unconstitutional taking in this case may also lead to an unconstitutional form of compelled speech.]

Branch v. Smith (01-1437) (6/10; 12/10; 3/31) (S.D. Miss.; Aff.; 7-2)
Decision; Docket & 01-1596; Findlaw
The District Court properly enjoined the enforcement of a state court redistricting plan and properly fashioned its own plan.
General Civil; Non-Business; Statutory
Majority: [AS] &Unan.; & WHR, AMK, RBG.
Concurrences: [JPS] & DS; SGB;
in part & dissent in part [SOC] & CT [The District Court should have ordered at-large elections for the entire state congressional delegation.]

Borden Ranch v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs. (01-1243) (6/10; 12/10, 12/16) (CA9; Aff.; 4-4)
Decision; Docket; Findlaw
Affirmed by an equally divided Court.
a.   Deep ripping, an activity that disgorges and redeposits soil in wetlands and waters of the United States to convert those areas to dry land, may result in a discharge of a pollutant for purposes of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
b.   Petitioners' deep ripping of a wetland did not qualify for the conditional exemption from regulation under § 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344(f). 3, and each violation of the Clean Water Act should be counted in determining the maximum civil penalty under § 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(d)
General Civil, Business, Statutory

Virginia v. Black (01-1107) (5/28; 12/11; 4/7) (Va. Sup. Ct.; Rev. in part; 6-3)
Decision; Docket; Findlaw
A state may prohibit cross-burning carried out with intent to intimidate.
Criminal, Non-Business, Constitutional
Majority: [SOC] & WHR, JPS, AS, SGB (as to Parts I, II, III)
Plurality: WHR, JPS & SGB (as to Parts IV and V) [The statute’s presumption of intent to intimidate from the act of cross burning is unconstitutional].
Concurrences: [JPS] [Cross burning with an intent to intimidate is unprotected by the First Amendment]
[AS] & CT [The case should be remanded to the Virginia Supreme Court for an authoritative interpretation of the presumption provision
in part and dissenting in part [DS] & AMK; RBG [The statute creates an unconstitutional content-based prohibition on speech, which cannot be saved by severing the prima facie finding of intent.]
Dissent: [CT] [The Virginia statute prohibits only conduct and not speech, and no First Amendment analysis is therefore necessary. The statutory presumption of intent to intimidate is an inference, not an irrebuttable presumption, and therefore does not offend Due Process]