Smith Associates Limited Partnership V: Fill & Download for Free

Generally no, and Jordan Jones and Konstantinos Konstantinides are probably correct, but the answer depends on whether you are a “broker/dealer” and if what you are selling constitutes a “security” under state or federal law.Note: None of the answers have mentioned it, so I thought I would point out that there are two transactions at play here - one for your services related to the sale of the company’s patent (discussed below), and one for the issuance of equity in the company.Even if you do not need a broker’s license to sell the patent, the issuance of your equity certainly involves other legal concerns such as taxes and securities laws, including disclosure obligations for your equity investment (see, for example, my answers to (1) I am trying to raise seed from accredited investors. What is the best route? Would it be a Reg D offering and what are the pros and cons? Can I do a Reg C offering now using the new crowdfunding release of the SEC? (2) In "friends and family" rounds, should you only raise capital from accredited investors? Why or why not?); if your company fails to comply with these securities laws, it may entitle you to a return of your investment (though please do not rely on this answer as this is not legal advice, and I’m only providing general information on the topic).DEFINITIONS1. Broker/DealerA broker is generally "any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others." Unlike a broker, who acts as a third party agent, a dealer acts as a principal of the transaction. A dealer is generally:any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities for such person’s own account through a broker or otherwise. See Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Exchange Act [search or scroll down to “(5) Dealer.—”]; see also Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act.The term “patent broker” should not be confused with a securities “broker” or “stockbroker.” A “patent broker” is the layman term for any person or firm who sells and buys patents on behalf of others. Generally one does not need a professional license merely to buy and sell patents for others (compare that with a real estate broker where a professional license is required).The test for broker registration is broad and depends on the particular facts and circumstances. The principal factors the SEC considers include whether the person (1) actively solicited investors, (2) advised investors as to the merits of an investment, (3) regularly participated in securities transactions and (4) received commissions or transaction-based remuneration.Issuer Exemption. Entities issuing securities (issuers) generally are not “brokers” because they sell securities for their own account and not for the account of others. Issuers are also normally not “dealers” because they do not sell securities for their own account as a part of a regular business. According to the SEC, this so-called “issuer’s exemption” does not apply to the personnel of a company who routinely engage in the business of effecting securities transactions for the company, such as general partners, employees and other related persons seeking investors in the company.The SEC has adopted Rule 3a4-1, a safe harbor rule, to provide a broker registration exemption for people associated with an issuer who participate in the sale of the issuer’s securities, including officers and employees of the issuer, a corporate general partner of a limited partnership issuer, or a company affiliated with the issuer. Under the safe harbor, an associated person will not be deemed a broker if, among other things, the person:Is not compensated by payment of commissions or other remuneration based on securities transactions;Is not associated with a broker-dealer; andLimits sales activities either (1) to one offering per 12 month period and performs other substantial duties, (2) to soliciting only certain financial institutions or (3) to passive or clerical duties not involving solicitation of investors.So, the fact that you are receiving equity on behalf of your company should not qualify you as a broker/dealer if either (1) there is no security offered (discussed below), or (2) if there is a security being offered, (i) you are not compensated by payment of commissions or other stock issuances based on whether the transaction successfully closes, (ii) are not associated with a broker-dealer, and (iii) you limit your sales activities to one of the three exemptions above.2. SecurityThe question thus becomes whether the patent or scheme that you are selling is a “security” within the broad definition of US securities laws. That’s hardly ever an easy question to answer.A “security” covers a broad range of transactions. For example, this is how a leading hornbook law introduces the term:What do the following have in common: Scotch whisky, self-improvement courses, cosmetics, earthworms, beavers, muskrats, rabbits, chinchillas, animal breeding programs, cattle embryos, fishing boats, vacuum cleaners, cemetery lots, coin operated telephones, master recording contracts, pooled litigation funds, and fruit trees? The answer is that they have all been held to be securities within the meaning of federal and state securities statutes. See The Law of Securities Regulation (6th Ed.) Thomas L. Hazen (2009).Statutory law defines “security” broadly:The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, [etc.]… See Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act [search or scroll down to “(10) The term”].Because the structure of the United States is built on federalism, you have to look at both federal and state securities laws. Federal law focuses on what is being sold constitutes an “investment contract,” whereas each state has formulated its own terminology of securities law (known as Blue Sky laws).THE LAWA. Federal Law: “Investment Contract”The landmark case on “investment contracts” is the U.S. Supreme Court case, SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (known as the “Howey test”). Under the Howey test, an investment contract (and thus a security) is “a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.” Accordingly, the four-part Howey test characterizes a transaction as an investment contract if it involves:an investment of money;in a common enterprise;with the expectation of profits; and,to be derived solely from the efforts of a third party. Howey, 328 U.S. 293, 299 (1946).Courts have applied the “investment contract” definition in surprising contexts. The following schemes have been held to be “investment contracts” and thus securities:Sale of citrus trees when the cultivation, harvest and marketing of the fruit was handled by an affiliate of the seller — exactly the scenario of Howey.Sale of earthworms when the seller promised to repurchase the worms and to market them to farmers. Smith v. Gross, 604 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1979).Sale of “participations” in a pyramid scheme (ostensibly for distributing and selling cosmetics) when the seller conducted promotional meetings and the buyer received a commission for each person brought into the scheme. SEC v. Koscot Inter., Inc., 497 F. 2d 473 (1974).The expectation-of-profits prong of the Howey test distinguishes schemes in which people place money for investment from those involving consumption.In United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, the Court noted that “[b]y profits” the Court has “meant either capital appreciation resulting from the development of the initial investment . . . or a participation in earnings resulting from the use of investors’ funds.” 421 U.S. 837, 852 (1975). In contrast, if the purchaser is motivated by the desire to consume the purchase, the securities laws do not apply.For example, let’s take a company like Intellectual Ventures which is known as an NPE, or more pointedly, a "patent troll" whose principal business is patent licensing and enforcement (keep in mind this is just a hypothetical). One can imagine if Intellectual Ventures "sold" its patents to buyers who then licensed back those patent rights to Intellectual Ventures with an expectation for a return on any patent that produced income (either by judicial judgments or licensing enforcement schemes). In that case, selling the patent might qualify as a security and thus would require you to have a broker/dealer license for the sale of the patent. However, if the sale of the patent is a one-off transaction with no expectation of profit to be derived solely from the efforts of the seller (or other third party), that is, it’s just an arm's-length transaction for consumption, then selling the patent would not likely meet the definition of an investment contract thus not require you to obtain a license.So, assuming this is a normal buy/sell transaction with the purchaser buying the patent and the seller receiving something of value with no continuing relationship, then you would not need a broker’s license to sell the patent.B. Minority of State Law: “Risk Capital Test”Some state courts (such as California) have used a “risk capital” test to identify when their state’s blue sky laws apply to unorthodox transactions. Unlike Howey’s focus on the investor’s reliance on the promoter’s efforts, the “risk capital” test focuses on the extent to which the investor’s initial outlay is subject to the risks of the enterprise, risks over which the investor has no managerial control.The risk capital test, which requires neither commonality nor the profits to be derived from the efforts of others, is often easier to satisfy than the Howey test. For example, state courts have treated memberships in recreational clubs as securities if the memberships were to finance the club facilities. See Silver Hills Country Club v. Sobieski, 55 Cal. 2d 811 (1961).CONCLUSIONYou mention you are helping a company sell a “patent,” but we don’t know (a) whether there is an investment contract underlying the sale of the patent, (b) whether the patent rights are sold outright or whether there is a license-back right or other scheme that preserves a common enterprise, and (c) whether there is an expectation of profit, that (d) derives solely from the efforts of third parties (i.e., the seller or affiliate of seller). However, selling a patent commonly involves only a one-off transaction with the sale of the patent (an asset) being exchanged for money. So, the answer to your question is “probably not,” but keep in mind the tests above, and also for your company to comply with all securities laws.

Which one…………….Writings by Justice Thomasgrouped by type, in alphabetical order by first party name[Opinions| Concurrences | Dissents | Concur in part, dissent in part ]M&G POLYMERS USA, ET AL. v. TACKETT, HOBERT F., ET AL. , , 01/26/15Opinions*NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pr v. , 531 U.S. 206, 01/09/0114 PENN PLAZA LLC, ET AL. v. PYETT, STEVEN, ET AL. , , 04/01/09AETNA HEALTH INC., ETC. v. DAVILA, JUAN , 542 U.S. 200 (2004), 06/21/04ALASKA v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIETRIBAL GOVERNMENT , 522 U.S. 520 (1998), 02/25/98ALASKA, Petitioner, v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT et al. , 522 U.S. 520, 02/25/98ALI, ABDUS-SHAHID M. S. v. FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL. , 552 U.S. 214 (2008), 01/22/08ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al. v. EDWARDS, guardian ad litem for EDWARDS, et al. , 514 U.S. 143 (1995), 03/22/95ASHCROFT, ATTY. GEN. v. ACLU, ET AL. , 535 U.S. 564 (2002), 05/13/02ASTRUE, COMM'R, SOCIAL SEC. v. RATLIFF, CATHERINE G. , , 06/14/10ATLANTIC SOUNDING CO., INC. v. TOWNSEND, EDGAR L. , , 06/25/09AZ DEPT. OF REVENUE v. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. , 526 U.S. 32 (1999), 03/02/99BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P., ET AL. v. ASARCO, L.L.C. , , 06/15/15BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. CAULKETT, DAVID B. , , 06/01/15BARAL, DAVID H. v. UNITED STATES , 528 U.S. 431 (2000), 02/22/00BARNHART, COMMR, SOC SEC v. SIGMON COAL CO., ET AL. , 534 U.S. 438 (2002), 02/19/02BD. OF ED., POTTAWATOMIE CTY v. EARLS, LINDSAY, ET AL. , 536 U.S. 822 (2002), 06/27/02BEARD, SEC., PA DOC, ET AL. v. BANKS, GEORGE E. , 542 U.S. 406 (2004), 06/24/04BECK, ROBERT A. v. PRUPIS, ROBERT M., ET AL. , 529 U.S. 494 (2000), 00/00/00BEN CHAVEZ, PETITIONER v. OLIVERIO MARTINEZ , 538 U.S. 1, 05/27/03BLOATE, TAYLOR J. v. UNITED STATES , , 03/08/10BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY v. EARLS ET AL. , 536 U.S. 822, 06/27/02BOGAN v. SCOTT-HARRIS , 523 U.S. 44 (1998), 03/03/98BOWLES, KEITH v. RUSSELL, WARDEN , 551 U.S. 205 (2007), 06/14/07BRIDGE, JOHN, ET AL. v. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY, ET AL. , 553 U.S. 639 (2008), 06/09/08C. Elvin FELTNER, Jr., Petitioner, v. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC. , 523 U.S. 340, 03/31/98CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. v. MORALES , 514 U.S. 499 (1995), 04/25/95CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners, v. Jose Ramon MORALES. , 514 U.S. 499, 04/25/95CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT et al. v. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N. A., INC., et al. , 519 U.S. 316 (1997), 02/18/97CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Petitioners, v. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC., and Manuel J. Arceo, dba Sound Systems Medi , 519 U.S. 316, 02/18/97CARCIERI, GOV. OF RI, ET AL. v. KEMPTHORNE, SEC. OF INTERIOR , , 02/24/09CAREY, WARDEN v. MUSLADIN, MATHEW , 549 U.S. 70 (2006), 12/11/06CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. HIF BIO, INC., ET AL. , , 05/04/09CARTER, FLOYD J. v. UNITED STATES , 530 U.S. 255 (2000), 06/12/00CASS COUNTY v. LEECH LAKE BAND OFCHIPPEWA INDIANS , 524 U.S. 103 (1998), 06/08/98Charles T. ROBINSON, Sr., Petitioner, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY. , 519 U.S. 337, 02/18/97CHAVEZ, BEN v. MARTINEZ, OLIVERIO , 538 U.S. 760 (2003), 05/27/03CHRISTENSEN, EDWARD, ET AL. v. HARRIS CTY., TX, ET AL. , 529 U.S. 576 (2000), 05/01/00CLINGMAN, SEC., OK ELECTION BD. v. BEAVER, ANDREA L., ET AL. , 544 U.S. 581 (2005), 05/23/05CONNECTICUT NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. Thomas M. GERMAIN, Trustee for the Estate of O'Sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc. , 503 U.S. 249, 03/09/92CONNICK, HARRY F., ET AL. v. THOMPSON, JOHN , , 03/29/11CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION v. GOTTSHALL , 512 U.S. 532 (1994), 06/24/94CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Petitioner v. James E. GOTTSHALL. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Petitioner v. Alan CARLISLE. , 512 U.S. 532, 06/24/94COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AVIALL SERVICES, INC. , 543 U.S. 157 (2004), 12/13/04CUELLAR, HUMBERTO F. R. v. UNITED STATES , 553 U.S. 550 (2008), 06/02/08CULLEN, ACTING WARDEN v. PINHOLSTER, SCOTT L. , , 04/04/11CUNNINGHAM, TERESA v. HAMILTON COUNTY , 527 U.S. 198 (1999), 06/14/99D. Grant PEACOCK, Petitioner, v. Jack L. THOMAS. , 516 U.S. 349, 02/21/96Dale FARRAR and Pat Smith, Co-Administrators of Estate of Joseph D. Farrar, Dece v. William P. HOBBY, Jr. , 506 U.S. 103, 12/14/92Daniel BOGAN and Marilyn Roderick, Petitioners, v. Janet SCOTT-HARRIS. , 523 U.S. 44, 03/03/98DELAWARE v. NEW YORK , 507 U.S. 490 (1993), 03/30/93DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. v. PUBLIC CITIZEN, ET AL. , 541 U.S. 752 (2004), 06/07/04DESERT PALACE, INC. v. COSTA, CATHARINA F. , 539 U.S. 90 (2003), 06/09/03DIR. OF REVENUE OF MO v. CoBANK ACB , 531 U.S. 316 (2001), 02/20/01DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. GREATER , 506 U.S. 125 (1992), 12/14/92Donald Neal RAKE, et al., Petitioners v. William J. WADE, Trustee. , 508 U.S. 464, 06/07/93DOOLEY v. KOREAN AIR LINES CO. , 524 U.S. 116 (1998), 06/08/98eBAY INC., ET AL. v. MERcEXCHANGE, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388 (2006), 05/15/06EGELHOFF, DONNA R. v. EGELHOFF, SAMANTHA, ET AL. , 532 U.S. 141 (2001), 03/21/01Ellis B. WRIGHT, Jr., Warden and Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of Virginia, P v. Frank Robert WEST, Jr. , 505 U.S. 277, 06/19/92Eloise ANDERSON, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al., Pet v. Verna EDWARDS, etc., et al. , 514 U.S. 143, 03/22/95ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC. v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERV. COMM. , 539 U.S. 39 (2003), 06/02/03EXXON CO., U. S. A., et al. v. SOFEC, INC., et al. , 517 U.S. 830 (1996), 06/10/96EXXON CO., U. S. A., et al. v. SOFEC, INC., et al.Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Nint , 517 U.S. 830, 06/10/96F. Dale ROBERTSON, Chief, United States Forest Service, et al., Petitioners, v. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY et al. , 503 U.S. 429, 03/25/92FARRAR et al., COADMINISTRATORS OF ESTATE OF FARRAR, DECEASED v. HOBBY , 506 U.S. 103 (1992), 12/14/92FED. MARITIME COMM'N v. SC STATE PORTS AUTHORITY , 535 U.S. 743 (2002), 05/28/02FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States, Petitioners, v. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. , 508 U.S. 307, 06/01/93FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. v. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. , 508 U.S. 307 (1993), 06/01/93FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. MEYER , 510 U.S. 471 (1994), 02/23/94FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY et al. , 535 U.S. 743, 05/28/02FELTNER v. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC. , 523 U.S. 340 (1998), 03/31/98FL DEPT. OF REVENUE v. PICCADILLY CAFETERIAS, INC. , , 06/16/08FLORIDA v. WHITE, TYVESSEL TYVORUS , 526 U.S. 559 (1999), 05/17/99Frank X. HOPKINS, Warden, Petitioner, v. Randolph K. REEVES. , 524 U.S. 88, 06/08/98FREIGHTLINER CORP. et al. v. MYRICK et al. , 514 U.S. 280 (1995), 04/18/95FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners v. Ben MYRICK, et ux., et al. , 514 U.S. 280, 04/18/95GEORGE SMITH, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. LEE ROBBINS , 528 U.S. 259, 01/19/00GITLITZ, D., ET UX., ET AL. v. CIR , 531 U.S. 206 (2001), 01/09/01GODINEZ, WARDEN v. MORAN , 509 U.S. 389 (1993), 06/24/93GOOD NEWS CLUB, ET AL. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL , 533 U.S. 98 (2001), 06/11/01GRAHAM COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. U. S., ex rel. WILSON , 545 U.S. 409 (2005), 06/20/05GRANITE ROCK COMPANY v. INT'L BHD. OF TEAMSTERS, ET AL. , , 06/24/10GROSS, JACK v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. , , 06/18/09HARDT, BRIDGET v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. , , 05/24/10HARPER et al. v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION , 509 U.S. 86 (1993), 06/18/93HARRIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v. SALOMON BROS., INC., ET AL. , 530 U.S. 238 (2000), 06/12/00Henry HARPER, et al., Petitioners, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. , 509 U.S. 86, 06/18/93HOLYWELL CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. Fred Stanton SMITH, etc., et al. UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Fred Stanton SMIT , 503 U.S. 47, 02/25/92HOPKINS v. REEVES , 524 U.S. 88 (1998), 06/08/98HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES v. PFENNIG, SHARON R. , 541 U.S. 232 (2004), 04/21/04HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO., ET AL. v. JACOBSON, STANLEY, ET AL. , 525 U.S. 432 (1999), 01/25/99HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, ex rel. William J. SCHUMER. , 520 U.S. 939, 06/16/97HUNT, GOV. OF NC, ET AL. v. CROMARTIE, MARTIN, ET AL. , 526 U.S. 541 (1999), 05/17/99J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, ET AL. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INTL. , 534 U.S. 124 (2001), 12/10/01JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, ET AL. v. FIRST DERIVATIVE TRADERS , , 06/13/11JEANNE WOODFORD, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. ROBERT FREDERICK GARCEAU. , 538 U.S. 202, 03/25/03JIMENEZ, CARLOS v. QUARTERMAN, DIR., TX DOC , , 01/13/09JONES v. UNITED STATES (97-9361)SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES , 527 U.S. 373, 00/00/00JONES, LOUIS v. UNITED STATES , 527 U.S. 373 (1999), 06/21/99Joseph Roger O'DELL, III, Petitioner, v. J.D. NETHERLAND, Warden, et al. , 521 U.S. 151, 06/19/97KANSAS v. HENDRICKS , 521 U.S. 346 (1997), 06/23/97KANSAS v. MARSH, MICHAEL L. , 548 U.S. 163 (2006), 06/26/06KANSAS, Petitioner, v. Leroy HENDRICKS.Leroy HENDRICKS, Petitioner,v.KANSAS. , 521 U.S. 346, 06/23/97KNOWLES, WARDEN v. MIRZAYANCE, ALEXANDRE , , 03/24/09LAWRENCE, GARY v. FLORIDA , 549 U.S. 327 (2007), 02/20/07LECHMERE, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. , 502 U.S. 527, 01/27/92Leonard NOBELMAN, et ux., Petitioners, v. AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK et al. , 508 U.S. 324, 06/01/93Leroy L. YOUNG, et al., Petitioners, v. Ernest Eugene HARPER. , 520 U.S. 143, 03/18/97LOCKHEED CORP. et al. v. SPINKCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. , 517 U.S. 882, 06/10/96LOCKHEED CORP. et al. v. SPINK , 517 U.S. 882 (1996), 06/10/96MAGWOOD, BILLY J. v. CULLIVER, WARDEN, ET AL. , , 06/24/10MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. v. EPSTEIN , 516 U.S. 367 (1996), 02/27/96MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Petitioners, v. Lawrence EPSTEIN et al. , 516 U.S. 367, 02/27/96McFADDEN, STEPHEN D. v. UNITED STATES , , 06/18/15McNEILL, CLIFTON T. v. UNITED STATES , , 06/06/11MELENDEZ v. UNITED STATES , 518 U.S. 120 (1996), 06/17/96MELENDEZ v. UNITED STATESCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circ , 518 U.S. 120, 06/17/96MITCHELL, GUY, ET AL. v. HELMS, MARY L., ET AL. , 530 U.S. 793 (2000), 06/28/00MONTANILE, ROBERT v. BD. OF TRUSTEES NEIHBP , , 01/20/16MOYLAN, ATT'Y GEN. OF GUAM v. CAMACHO, GOV. OF GUAM , 549 U.S. 483 (2007), 03/27/07MUSACCHIO, MICHAEL v. UNITED STATES , , 01/25/16NAT'L CABLE & TELECOMM. ASSN. v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES , 545 U.S. 967 (2005), 06/27/05NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. v. FIRST NAT.BANK & TRUST CO. , 522 U.S. 479 (1998), 02/25/98NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. et al. AT&T FAMILY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al., , 522 U.S. 479, 02/25/98NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ET AL. , 538 U.S. 1, 05/27/03NATIONAL PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION et al. , 515 U.S. 582 (1995), 06/19/95NATIONAL PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION et al. , 515 U.S. 582, 06/19/95NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION v. MORGAN. , 536 U.S. 101, 06/10/02NATL. PARK HOSP. ASSN. v. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. , 538 U.S. 803 (2003), 05/27/03NATL. RR PASSENGER CORP. v. MORGAN, ABNER , 536 U.S. 101 (2002), 06/10/02NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. LOEWENSTEIN , 513 U.S. 123 (1994), 12/12/94NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Petitioner v. John LOEWENSTEIN. , 513 U.S. 123, 12/12/94NOBELMAN et ux. v. AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK , 508 U.S. 324 (1993), 06/01/93NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. HILES , 516 U.S. 400 (1996), 02/27/96NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. William J. HILES. , 516 U.S. 400, 02/27/96NORTHEASTERN FLORIDA CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, , 508 U.S. 656 (1993), 06/14/93NORTHEASTERN FLORIDA CHAPTER OF the ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, P v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, et al. , 508 U.S. 656, 06/14/93Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. CHATHAM COUNTY, GA , 547 U.S. 189 (2006), 04/25/06NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 534 U.S. 124, 12/10/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 530 U.S. 793, 06/28/00NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 223, 04/18/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 483, 05/14/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 141, 03/21/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 533 U.S. 98, 06/11/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 530 U.S. 255, 06/12/00NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 843, 06/04/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 534 U.S. 506, 02/26/02NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 533 U.S. 656, 06/28/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 530 U.S. 238, 06/12/00NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 527 U.S. 198, 06/14/99NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 531 U.S. 316, 02/20/01O'DELL v. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, et al. , 521 U.S. 151 (1997), 06/19/97OLYMPIC AIRWAYS v. HUSAIN, RUBINA, ETC., ET AL. , 540 U.S. 644 (2004), 02/24/04OREGON WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE , 511 U.S. 93 (1994), 04/04/94OREGON WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Petitioners v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF The STATE OF OREGON et al. COLUMBIA RESOU , 511 U.S. 93, 04/04/94ORFF, FRANCIS A., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. , 545 U.S. 596 (2005), 06/23/05PASQUANTINO, DAVID B., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES , 544 U.S. 349 (2005), 04/26/05PEACOCK v. THOMAS , 516 U.S. 349 (1996), 02/21/96Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 (1998), 06/22/98PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Petitioner, v. Keith M. SCOTT. , 524 U.S. 357, 06/22/98PERMANENT MISSION ETC., ET AL. v. NEW YORK, NY , 551 U.S. 193 (2007), 06/14/07Philomena DOOLEY, personal representative of the estate of Cecelio Chuapoco, et v. KOREAN AIR LINES CO., LTD. , 524 U.S. 116, 06/08/98PIERCE COUNTY, WA v. GUILLEN, IGNACIO, ET AL. , 537 U.S. 129 (2003), 01/14/03PLILER, WARDEN v. FORD, RICHARD H. , 542 U.S. 225 (2004), 06/21/04PLIVA, INC., ET AL. v. MENSING, GLADYS , , 06/23/11POLLARD, SHARON B. v. E. I. DuPONT de NEMOURS , 532 U.S. 843 (2001), 06/04/01PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE INVESTORS, INC., et al., Petitioners v. COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. , 508 U.S. 49, 05/03/93QUANTA COMPUTER, INC., ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. , 553 U.S. 617 (2008), 06/09/08RAKE et al. v. WADE, TRUSTEE , 508 U.S. 464 (1993), 06/07/93RAYTHEON CO. v. HERNANDEZ, JOEL , 540 U.S. 44 (2003), 12/02/03REED ELSEVIER, INC., ET AL. v. MUCHNICK, IRVIN, ET AL. , , 03/02/10REED, CLYDE, ET AL. v. GILBERT, AZ, ET AL. , , 06/18/15Reversed.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 526 U.S. 541, 00/00/00Robert E. RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury, Petitioner v. COORS BREWING COMPANY, Respondent. , 514 U.S. 476, 04/19/95ROBERTSON, CHIEF, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al. v. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY , 503 U.S. 429 (1992), 03/25/92ROBINSON v. SHELL OIL CO. , 519 U.S. 337 (1997), 02/18/97ROUSEY, RICHARD G., ET UX. v. JACOWAY, JILL R. , 544 U.S. 320 (2005), 04/04/05RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY v. COORS BREWING CO. , 514 U.S. 476 (1995), 04/19/95Salvador GODINEZ, Warden, Petitioner v. Richard Allan MORAN. , 509 U.S. 389, 04/21/93SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. v. UNITED STATES, EX REL. KIRK , , 05/16/11SCHRIRO, DIR., AZ DOC v. LANDRIGAN, JEFFREY T. , 550 U.S. 465 (2007), 05/14/07SCHWAB, WILLIAM G. v. REILLY, NADEJDA , , 06/17/10SHANNON v. UNITED STATES , 512 U.S. 573 (1994), 06/24/94Sharlene WILSON, Petitioner v. ARKANSAS. , 514 U.S. 927, 05/22/95SHAW, ROBERT, ET AL. v. MURPHY, KEVIN , 532 U.S. 223 (2001), 04/18/01Shirley M. MOLZOF, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert E. Molzof, Pe v. UNITED STATES. , 502 U.S. 301, 01/14/92SIMS, JUATASSA v. APFEL, COMM'R, SOCIAL SEC. , 530 U.S. 103 (2000), 06/05/00SMTIH, WARDEN v. ROBBINS, LEE , 528 U.S. 259 (2000), 01/19/00SOSSAMON, HARVEY L. v. TEXAS, ET AL. , , 04/20/11SOUTH DAKOTA v. BOURLAND, individually and as chairman of the CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, et al. , 508 U.S. 679 (1993), 06/14/93SOUTH DAKOTA, Petitioner, v. Gregg BOURLAND, etc., et al. , 508 U.S. 679, 06/14/93SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. v. MENDELSOHN, ELLEN , 552 U.S. 379 (2008), 02/26/08STAPLES v. UNITED STATES , 511 U.S. 600 (1994), 05/23/94State of DELAWARE, Plaintiff, v. State of NEW YORK. , 507 U.S. 490, 03/30/93STEWART, WILLARD v. DUTRA CONST. CO. , 543 U.S. 481 (2005), 02/22/05SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 526 U.S. 275, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 526 U.S. 541, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 525 U.S. 432, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 524 U.S. 103, 00/00/00SWIERKIEWICZ, AKOS v. SOREMA N.A. , 534 U.S. 506 (2002), 02/26/02SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 529 U.S. 576, 00/00/00SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 529 U.S. 494, 00/00/00SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 526 U.S. 32, 00/00/00SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 528 U.S. 431, 00/00/00TALK AMERICA, INC. v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE CO. , , 06/09/11TAYLOR v. FREELAND & KRONZ et al. , 503 U.S. 638 (1992), 04/21/92TAYLOR v. FREELAND & KRONZ et al. , 503 U.S. 638, 04/21/92Terry Lee SHANNON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. , 512 U.S. 573, 06/24/94TEXACO, INC. v. DAGHER, FOUAD N., ET AL. , 547 U.S. 1 (2006), 02/28/06The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor, Petitioners, v. The GREATER WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE. , 506 U.S. 125, 12/14/92THINGS REMEMBERED, INC. v. PETRARCA , 516 U.S. 124 (1995), 12/05/95THINGS REMEMBERED, INC., Petitioner, v. Anthony A. PETRARCA. , 516 U.S. 124, 12/05/95TYLER, MELVIN v. CAIN, WARDEN , 533 U.S. 656 (2001), 06/28/01U. S., EX REL. EISENSTEIN v. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. , , 06/08/09UNITED STATES v. SALERNO et al. , 505 U.S. 317 (1992), 06/19/92UNITED STATES v. LaBONTE et al. , 520 U.S. 751 (1997), 05/27/97UNITED STATES v. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP. , 551 U.S. 128 (2007), 06/11/07UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER , 523 U.S. 303 (1998), 03/31/98UNITED STATES v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.Certiorari to the United States Court of Ap , 517 U.S. 843, 06/10/96UNITED STATES v. GALLETTI , 541 U.S. 114 (2004), 03/23/04UNITED STATES v. OAKLAND CANNABIS, ET AL. , 532 U.S. 483 (2001), 05/14/01UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, JACINTO , 526 U.S. 275 (1999), 03/30/99UNITED STATES v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. , 517 U.S. 843 (1996), 06/10/96UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN , 524 U.S. 321 (1998), 06/22/98UNITED STATES v. PATANE, SAMUEL F. , 542 U.S. 630 (2004), 06/28/04UNITED STATES v. WILSON , 503 U.S. 329 (1992), 03/24/92UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ SANCHEZ , 511 U.S. 350 (1994), 05/02/94UNITED STATES v. MEZZANATTO , 513 U.S. 196 (1995), 01/18/95UNITED STATES DEPT. OF DEFENSE v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS , 510 U.S. 487 (1994), 02/23/94UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. BEAN, THOMAS L. , 537 U.S. 71 (2002), 12/10/02UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Richard WILSON. , 503 U.S. 329, 03/24/92UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Gary MEZZANATTO. , 513 U.S. 196, 01/18/95UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Hosep Krikor BAJAKAJIAN. , 524 U.S. 321, 06/22/98UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. George LaBONTE, Alfred Lawrence Hunnewell, and Stephen Dyer. , 520 U.S. 751, 05/27/97UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Anthony SALERNO et al. , 505 U.S. 317, 06/19/92UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. v. ESPINOSA, FRANCISCO J. , , 03/23/10UNITHERM FOOD SYS., INC. v. SWIFT-ECKRICH, INC., ET AL. , 546 U.S. 394 (2006), 01/23/06WADDINGTON, SUPT., WA v. SARAUSAD, CESAR , , 01/21/09WAGNON, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION , 546 U.S. 95 (2005), 12/06/05WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. v. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO. , 520 U.S. 17 (1997), 03/03/97WARNER-JENKINSON COMPANY, INC., Petitioner v. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO. , 520 U.S. 17, 03/03/97WASHINGTON v. RECUENCO, ARTURO R. , 548 U.S. 212 (2006), 06/26/06WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE v. WA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL. , 552 U.S. 442 (2008), 03/18/08WEYERHAEUSER CO. v. ROSS-SIMMONS HARDWOOD LUMBER CO. , 549 U.S. 312 (2007), 02/20/07WILSON v. ARKANSAS , 514 U.S. 927 (1995), 05/22/95WOODFORD, WARDEN v. GARCEAU, ROBERT F. , 538 U.S. 202 (2003), 03/25/03WRIGHT, WARDEN, et al. v. WEST , 505 U.S. 277 (1992), 06/19/92YOUNG et al. v. HARPER , 520 U.S. 143 (1997), 03/18/97Concurrences44 LIQUORMART, INC., et al. v. RHODE ISLAND et al. , 517 U.S. 484 (1996), 05/13/96A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Petitioner v. Bobby Ray FRETWELL. , 506 U.S. 364, 01/25/93ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. , 515 U.S. 200 (1995), 06/12/95ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Petitioner v. Federico PENA, Secretary of Transportation, et al. , 515 U.S. 200, 06/12/95ALBERTSONS, INC. v. KIRKINGBURG, HALLIE , 527 U.S. 555 (1999), 06/22/99AM. TRUCKING ASSNS., ET AL. v. MI PUB. SERV. COMM'N, ET AL. , 06/20/05APPRENDI, CHARLES C. v. NEW JERSEY , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 06/26/00ASHCROFT, ATTY. GEN., ET AL. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION , 535 U.S. 234 (2002), 04/16/02AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION, VINCENT, ET UX. , , 04/27/11BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. v.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP v. , 526 U.S. 434 (1999), 05/03/99BARTLETT, GARY, ET AL. v. STRICKLAND, DWIGHT, ET AL. , , 03/09/09BAZE, RALPH, ET AL. v. REES, COMM'R, KY DOC, ET AL. , 553 U.S. 35 (2008), 04/16/08BEARD, SEC., PA DOC v. BANKS, RONALD , 548 U.S. 521 (2006), 06/28/06BEDROC LTD., LLC, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. , 541 U.S. 176 (2004), 03/31/04BENNIS v. MICHIGAN , 517 U.S. 1163 (1996), 03/04/96BERGHUIS, WARDEN v. SMITH, DIAPOLIS , , 03/30/10BROWNER, EPA ADMINR. v. AM. TRUCKING ASSNS., ET AL. , , 02/27/01BUCKLEY, SEC. OF ST. OF CO v. AM. CONST. LAW FNDN., ET AL. , 525 U.S. 182 (1999), 01/12/99BUSH, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, et al. v. VERA et al. , 517 U.S. 952 (1996), 06/13/96CAMPBELL-EWALD COMPANY v. GOMEZ, JOSE , , 01/20/16CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD et al. v. PINETTE et al. , 515 U.S. 753 (1995), 06/29/95CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD, et al., Petitioners v. Vincent J. PINETTE, Donnie A. Carr and Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. , 515 U.S. 753, 06/29/95CARACHURI-ROSENDO, JOSE A. v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN. , , 06/14/10CHRISTOPHER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. v. HARBURY. , 536 U.S. 403, 06/20/02CHRISTOPHER, WARREN, ET AL. v. HARBURY, JENNIFER K. , 536 U.S. 403 (2002), 06/20/02COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SOLIMAN , 506 U.S. 168 (1993), 01/12/93CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA , 508 U.S. 602 (1993), 06/14/93CONCRETE PIPE AND PRODUCTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Petitioner v. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. , 508 U.S. 602, 06/14/93COOK, REBECCA M. v. GRALIKE, DON , 531 U.S. 510 (2001), 02/28/01COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC. , 532 U.S. 424 (2001), 05/14/01CUTTER, JON B., ET AL. v. WILKINSON, DIR., OH DOC, ET AL. , 544 U.S. 709 (2005), 05/31/05DEPT. OF REVENUE OF KY, ET AL. v. DAVIS, GEORGE W., ET UX. , 553 U.S. 328 (2008), 05/19/08Dorsie Lee JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. TEXAS. , 509 U.S. 350, 06/24/93DURYEA, PA, ET AL. v. GUARNIERI, CHARLES J. , , 06/20/11EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL , 524 U.S. 498 (1998), 06/25/98EASTERN ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, et al. , 524 U.S. 498, 06/25/98EDELMAN v. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE. , 535 U.S. 106, 03/19/02EDELMAN, LEONARD v. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE , 535 U.S. 106 (2002), 03/19/02ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCH. DIST. v. NEWDOW, MICHAEL A., ET AL. , 542 U.S. 1 (2004), 06/14/04ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, ET AL. v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION , 549 U.S. 561 (2007), 04/02/07FARMER v. BRENNAN, WARDEN, et al. , 511 U.S. 825 (1994), 06/06/94FCC, ET AL. v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, ET AL. , , 04/28/09FOGERTY v. FANTASY, INC. , 510 U.S. 517 (1994), 03/01/94Gary GRAHAM, Petitioner, v. James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional , 506 U.S. 461, 01/25/93George W. BUSH, Governor of Texas, et al., Appellants, v. AL VERA et al. William LAWSON, et al., Appellants, v. AL VERA et al. UNITED STAT , 517 U.S. 952, 06/13/96GEORGIA v. ASHCROFT, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. , 539 U.S. 461 (2003), 06/26/03GEORGIA v. McCOLLUM et al. , 505 U.S. 42 (1992), 06/18/92GEORGIA, Petitioner v. Thomas McCOLLUM, William Joseph McCollum and Ella Hampton McCollum. , 505 U.S. 42, 06/18/92GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN. v. CARHART, LEROY, ET AL. , 550 U.S. 124 (2007), 04/18/07GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS v. DARUE ENGINEERING , 545 U.S. 308 (2005), 06/13/05GRAHAM v. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION , 506 U.S. 461 (1993), 01/25/93GRATZ, JENNIFER, ET AL. v. BOLLINGER, LEE, ET AL. , 539 U.S. 244 (2003), 06/23/03GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADC. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. , 527 U.S. 173 (1999), 06/14/99HARBISON, EDWARD J. v. BELL, WARDEN , , 04/01/09HECK v. HUMPHREY et al. , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), 06/24/94HOLDER, individually and in his official capacity as COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR BLE v. HALL et al. , 512 U.S. 874 (1994), 06/30/94HORNE, MARVIN D., ET AL. v. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE , , 06/22/15HOWSAM, KAREN, ETC. v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS , 537 U.S. 79 (2002), 12/10/02IRIZARRY, RICHARD v. UNITED STATES , 553 U.S. 708 (2008), 06/12/08Janet RENO, Attorney General, Appellant, v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.George PRICE, et al., Appellants,v.TISBOSSIER , 520 U.S. 471, 05/12/97Jay PRINTZ, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. Richard MACK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. , 521 U.S. 898, 06/27/97JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. v. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. et al. , 513 U.S. 527 (1995), 02/22/95JEROME B. GRUBART, INC., Petitioner, v. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK COMPANY et al. CITY OF CHICAGO, Petitioner, v. GREAT L , 513 U.S. 527, 02/22/95JOHANNS, SEC. OF AGRIC., ET AL. v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING, ET AL. , 544 U.S. 550 (2005), 05/23/05JOHNSON v. TEXAS , 509 U.S. 350 (1993), 06/24/93JOHNSON, CORNELL v. UNITED STATES , 529 U.S. 694 (2000), 05/15/00JONES, DEWEY J. v. UNITED STATES , 529 U.S. 848 (2000), 05/22/00JONES, JERRY N., ET AL. v. HARRIS ASSOCIATES L.P. , , 03/30/10Joseph McINTYRE, Executor of Estate of Margaret McIntyre, Deceased, Petitioner, v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION. , 514 U.S. 334, 04/19/95Joseph ONCALE, Petitioner, v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, et al. , 523 U.S. 75, 03/04/98KANSAS v. COLORADO , , 12/07/04Kenneth LYNCE, Petitioner, v. Hamilton MATHIS, Superintendent, Tomoka Correctional Institution, et al. , 519 U.S. 433, 02/19/97KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC v. NIGH, BRADLEY , 543 U.S. 50 (2004), 11/30/04KOWALSKI, JUDGE, ETC., ET AL. v. TESMER, JOHN C., ET AL. , 543 U.S. 125 (2004), 12/13/04LaRUE, JAMES v. DeWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOC., INC. , 552 U.S. 248 (2008), 02/20/08Lee M. TILL, et ux., Petitioners v. SCS CREDIT CORPORATION , 541 U.S. 465, 05/17/04LEVIN, RICHARD A. v. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., ET AL. , , 06/01/10LEWIS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. v. CASEY et al.Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circu , 518 U.S. 343, 06/24/96LEWIS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. v. CASEY et al. , 516 U.S. 804 (1996), 06/24/96LILLY, BENJAMIN L. v. VIRGINIA , 527 U.S. 116 (1999), 06/10/99LOCKHART, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION v. FRETWELL , 506 U.S. 364 (1993), 01/25/93LORILLARD TOBACCO CO., ET AL v. REILLY, ATTY. GEN. OF MA , , 06/28/01LOVING v. UNITED STATES , 517 U.S. 748 (1996), 06/03/96LOVING v. UNITED STATESCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forc , 517 U.S. 748, 00/00/00LYNCE v. MATHIS, SUPERINTENDENT, TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al. , 519 U.S. 433 (1997), 02/19/97MARYLAND v. SHATZER, MICHAEL B. , , 02/24/10McDANIEL, WARDEN, ET AL. v. BROWN, TROY , , 01/11/10McDONALD, OTIS, ET AL. v. CHICAGO, IL , , 06/28/10McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION , 514 U.S. 334 (1995), 04/19/95MEADWESTVACO CORP. v. IL DEPT. OF REVENUE, ET AL. , 553 U.S. 16 (2008), 04/15/08MELENDEZ-DIAZ, LUIS E. v. MASSACHUSETTS , , 06/25/09MICHIGAN v. BRYANT, RICHARD P. , , 02/28/11MICHIGAN, ET AL. v. EPA, ET AL. , , 06/29/15MICROSOFT CORP. v. I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. , , 06/09/11MILAVETZ, GALLOP & MILAVETZ v. UNITED STATES , , 03/08/10MISSOURI et al. v. JENKINS et al. , 515 U.S. 70 (1995), 06/12/95MISSOURI, et al., Petitioners v. Kalima JENKINS, et al. , 515 U.S. 70, 06/12/95MITCHELL, WARDEN v. STUMPF, JOHN D. , 545 U.S. 175 (2005), 06/13/05MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CARPENTER, NORMAN , , 12/08/09MORSE, DEBORAH, ET AL. v. FREDERICK, JOSEPH , 551 U.S. 393 (2007), 06/25/07NASA, ET AL. v. NELSON, ROBERT M., ET AL. , , 01/19/11NORDLINGER v. HAHN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TAX ASSESSOR FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al. , 505 U.S. 1 (1992), 06/18/92NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 534 U.S. 1, 11/13/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 530 U.S. 466, 06/26/00NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 533 U.S. 405, 06/25/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 531 U.S. 250, 01/17/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 424, 05/14/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 531 U.S. 457, 02/27/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 822, 06/04/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 533 U.S. 525, 06/28/01OHIO v. CLARK, DARIUS , , 06/18/15ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC. , 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 03/04/98ORTIZ, MICHELLE v. JORDAN, PAULA, ET AL. , , 01/24/11OVERTON, DIR., MI DOC v. BAZZETTA, MICHELLE, ET AL. , 539 U.S. 126 (2003), 06/16/03PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMM. SCHS. v. SEATTLE SCH. DIST. NO. 1 , 551 U.S. 701 (2007), 06/28/07PERDUE, GOV. OF GA, ET AL. v. KENNY A., ET AL. , , 04/21/10PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH v. WALSH , 538 U.S. 644 (2003), 05/19/03PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA v. WALSH, ACTING COMMISSIONER, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. , 538 U.S. 1, 05/19/03POSTAL SERVICE v. GREGORY, MARIA A. , 534 U.S. 1 (2001), 11/13/01PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES , 521 U.S. 898 (1997), 06/27/97Randall D. WHITE, Petitioner v. ILLINOIS. , 502 U.S. 346, 01/15/92RANDALL, NEIL, ET AL. v. SORRELL, WILLIAM H., ET AL. , 548 U.S. 230 (2006), 06/26/06RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., ETC. v. HENTON, WILLIAM T. , 541 U.S. 1 (2004), 03/02/04RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOSSIER PARISH SCH. BD. , , 01/24/00RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al. , 520 U.S. 471 (1997), 05/12/97REPUBLIC NAT'L BANK OF MIAMI v. UNITED STATES , 506 U.S. 80 (1992), 12/14/92REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. , 506 U.S. 80, 12/14/92RICHMOND v. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA , 506 U.S. 56 (1992), 12/01/92Ronald W. ROSENBERGER, et al., Petitioners v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al. , 515 U.S. 819, 06/29/95ROSENBERGER et al. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al. , 515 U.S. 819 (1995), 06/29/95SABRI, BASIM O. v. UNITED STATES , 541 U.S. 600 (2004), 05/17/04SAFECO INS. CO., ET AL. v. BURR, CHARLES, ET AL. , 551 U.S. 47 (2007), 06/04/07SAMANTAR, MOHAMED A. v. YOUSUF, BASHE A., ET AL. , , 06/01/10SELING, SUPT., SPECIAL CC v. YOUNG, ANDRE BRIGHAM , 531 U.S. 250 (2001), 01/17/01SHEPARD, REGINALD v. UNITED STATES , 544 U.S. 13 (2005), 03/07/05SMITH, ET AL. v. DOE, ET AL. , 538 U.S. 84 (2003), 03/05/03SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. ALABAMA , 526 U.S. 160 (1999), 03/23/99Stephanie NORDLINGER, Petitioner v. Kenneth HAHN, in his capacity as Tax Assessor for Los Angeles County, et al. , 505 U.S. 1, 06/18/92SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 527 U.S. 173, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 527 U.S. 116, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 526 U.S. 434, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 526 U.S. 160, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 525 U.S. 234, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 525 U.S. 182, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 527 U.S. 555, 00/00/00SYKES, MARCUS v. UNITED STATES , , 06/09/11SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 529 U.S. 803, 00/00/00SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 528 U.S. 320, 00/00/00SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 529 U.S. 644, 00/00/00SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 529 U.S. 598, 00/00/00SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 529 U.S. 848, 00/00/00THOMPSON, SEC. OF H&HS v. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENT. , 535 U. S. 357 (2002), 04/29/02THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER ET AL. , 535 U.S. 357, 04/29/02TILL, LEE M., ET UX. v. SCS CREDIT CORP. , 541 U.S. 465 (2004), 05/17/04Tina B. BENNIS, Petitioner, v. MICHIGAN. , 516 U.S. 442, 03/04/96TN SECD'Y SCH. ATHL. ASSN. v. BRENTWOOD ACADEMY , 551 U.S. 291 (2007), 06/21/07TROXEL, JENIFER, ET VIR v. GRANVILLE, TOMMIE , 530 U.S. 57 (2000), 06/05/00TWO PESOS, INC. v. TACO CABANA, INC. , 505 U.S. 763 (1992), 06/26/92TWO PESOS, INC., Petitioner v. TACO CABANA, INC. , 505 U.S. 763, 06/26/92UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES v. UNITED STATES , 532 U.S. 822 (2001), 06/04/01UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. v. ONEIDA-HERKIMER SOLID WASTE , 550 U.S. 330 (2007), 04/30/07UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN, MARTIN, ET AL. , , 05/24/10UNITED STATES v. RUIZ, ANGELA , 536 U.S. 622 (2002), 06/24/02UNITED STATES v. LARA, BILLY JO , 541 U.S. 193 (2004), 04/19/04UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ , 514 U.S. 549 (1995), 04/26/95UNITED STATES v. R. L. C. , 503 U.S. 291 (1992), 03/24/92UNITED STATES v. HUBBELL, WEBSTER L. , 530 U.S. 27 (2000), 06/05/00UNITED STATES v. RESSAM, AHMED , 553 U.S. 272 (2008), 05/19/08UNITED STATES v. RUIZ. , 536 U.S. 622, 06/24/02UNITED STATES v. MORRISON, ANTONIO J., ET AL. , , 05/15/00UNITED STATES v. FORDICE, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, et al. , 505 U.S. 717 (1992), 06/26/92UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP , 529 U.S. 803 (2000), 05/22/00UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. UNITED FOODS, INC. , 533 U.S. 405 (2001), 06/25/01UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Alfonso LOPEZ, Jr. , 514 U.S. 549, 04/26/95UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. R.L.C. , 503 U.S. 291, 03/24/92UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Kirk FORDICE, Governor of Mississippi, et al. Jake AYERS, et al., Petitioners, v , 505 U.S. 717, 06/26/92VAN ORDEN, THOMAS v. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL. , 545 U.S. 677 (2005), 06/27/05WEST COVINA v. PERKINS , 525 U.S. 234 (1999), 01/13/99WILKIE v. ROBBINS , 551 U.S. 537 (2007), 06/25/07WILKINS v. GADDY , , 02/22/10WILLIAMSON, DELBERT, ET AL. v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, ET AL. , , 02/23/11Willie Lee RICHMOND, Petitioner, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. , 506 U.S. 40, 12/01/92WYETH v. LEVINE, DIANA , , 03/04/09ZELMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OHIO, ET AL. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS ET AL. , 536 U.S. 639, 06/27/02ZELMAN, SUPT. OF PUB. INSTR. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, DORIS, ET AL , 536 U.S. 639 (2002), 06/27/02DissentsOLMSTEAD, COMMR., GA HUMAN vs. L. C., ETC. ET AL., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), 06/22/99(97-1396)Reversed and remanded.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 525 U.S. 266, 00/00/00ALLIED BRUCE TERMINIX COS., INC., et al. v. DOBSON et al. , 513 U.S. 265 (1995), 01/18/95ALLIED-BRUCE TERMINIX COMPANIES, INC., and Terminix International Company, Petit v. G. Michael DOBSON et al. , 513 U.S. 265, 01/18/95ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. GOOD, STEPHANIE, ET AL. , , 12/15/08ANDERSON, ELOISE, ET AL. v. ROE, BRENDA, ET AL. , 526 U.S. 489 (1999), 05/17/99Antonio MASTROBUONO and Diana G. Mastrobuono, Petitioners, v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., et al. , 514 U.S. 52, 03/06/95ARCHER, A. ELLIOTT, ET UX. v. WARNER, ARLENE L. , 538 U.S. 314 (2003), 03/31/03Arthur L. GUSTAFSON, et al., Petitioners v. ALLOYD COMPANY, INCORPORATED fka Alloyd Holdings, Incorporated, et al. , 513 U.S. 561, 02/28/95BARNHART, COMM'R, SSA v. PEABODY COAL CO., ET AL. , 537 U.S. 149 (2003), 01/15/03Beth Ann FARAGHER, Petitioner, v. CITY OF BOCA RATON. , 524 U.S. 775, 06/26/98BOEING CO., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES , 537 U.S. 437 (2003), 03/04/03Bolley JOHNSON, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, et al., Appella v. Miguel De GRANDY, et al. Miguel De GRANDY, et al., Appellants, v. Bolley JOHNSON , 512 U.S. 997, 06/30/94BRENTWOOD ACADEMY v. TN SECONDARY SCH., ET AL. , 531 U.S. 288 (2001), 02/20/01BRUMFIELD, KEVAN v. CAIN, WARDEN , , 06/18/15BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA, JOHN, ET AL. , 546 U.S. 440 (2006), 02/21/06BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH , 524 U.S. 742 (1998), 06/26/98BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. Kimberly B. ELLERTH. , 524 U.S. 742, 06/26/98CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. v. TOWN OF HARRISON et al. , 520 U.S. 564 (1997), 05/19/97CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC., Petitioner, v. TOWN OF HARRISON, MAINE, et al. , 520 U.S. 564, 05/19/97CARON v. UNITED STATES , 524 U.S. 308 (1998), 06/22/98CBOCS WEST, INC. v. HUMPHRIES, HEDRICK G. , 553 U.S. 442 (2008), 05/27/08CEDAR RAPIDS COM. SCH. DIST. v. GARRET F., A MINOR, ETC. , 526 U.S. 66 (1999), 03/03/99CENTRAL VIRGINIA COMM. COLLEGE v. KATZ, BERNARD , 546 U.S. 356 (2006), 01/23/06CHICAGO v. MORALES , 527 U.S. 41 (1999), 06/10/99CITY OF EDMONDS v. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., et al. , 514 U.S. 725 (1995), 05/15/95CITY OF EDMONDS, Petitioner v. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., et al. , 514 U.S. 725, 05/15/95COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LUNDY , 516 U.S. 235 (1996), 01/17/96COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. Robert F. LUNDY. , 516 U.S. 235, 01/17/96CONE, GARY B. v. BELL, WARDEN , , 04/28/09CRAWFORD, INT. FIELD OFFICE DIR. v. MARTINEZ, SERGIO S. , 543 U.S. 371 (2005), 01/12/05CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON LTD. v. BILLING, GLEN, ET AL. , 551 U.S. 264 (2007), 06/18/07CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. AL DEPT. OF REVENUE, ET AL. , , 02/22/11Dan GLICKMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, Petitioner, v. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., et al. , 521 U.S. 457, 06/25/97David DAWSON, Petitioner, v. DELAWARE. , 503 U.S. 159, 03/09/92David RIGGINS, Petitioner v. NEVADA. , 504 U.S. 127, 05/18/92DECK, CARMAN v. MISSOURI , 544 U.S. 622 (2005), 05/23/05DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA, AMY, ET AL. , , 12/14/15DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. v. CASAROTTO et ux.Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana. , 517 U.S. 681, 05/20/96DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. v. CASAROTTO et ux. , 517 U.S. 681 (1996), 05/20/96DOE #1, JOHN, ET AL. v. REED, WA SEC. OF STATE, ET AL. , , 06/24/10DOGGETT v. UNITED STATES , 505 U.S. 647 (1992), 00/00/00DOLAN, BARBARA v. USPS, ET AL. , 546 U.S. 481 (2006), 02/22/06Dolores M. OUBRE, Petitioner, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. , 522 U.S. 422, 01/26/98Donald L. HELLING, et al., Petitioners, v. William McKINNEY. , 509 U.S. 25, 06/18/93EEOC v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. , 534 U.S. 279 (2002), 01/15/02ELONIS, ANTHONY D. v. UNITED STATES , , 06/01/15ERICKSON v. PARDUS , 551 U.S. 89 (2007), 06/04/07EVANS v. UNITED STATES , 504 U.S. 255 (1992), 05/26/92FARAGHER v. CITY OF BOCA RATON , 524 U.S. 775 (1998), 06/26/98FEC v. CO REPUBLICAN FED. CAMPAIGN , 533 U.S. 431 (2001), 06/25/01FEC v. BEAUMONT, CHRISTINE, ET AL. , 539 U.S. 146 (2003), 06/16/03FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. v. HOLOWECKI, PAUL, ET AL. , 552 U.S. 389 (2008), 02/27/08FISCHER, JEFFREY A. v. UNITED STATES , 529 U.S. 667 (2000), 05/15/00Fortis MORSE, Kenneth Curtis Bartholomew and Kimberly J. Enderson, Appellants, v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA et al. , 517 U.S. 186, 03/27/96FOUCHA v. LOUISIANA , 504 U.S. 71 (1992), 05/18/92Frank B. McFARLAND, Petitioner v. Wayne SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Divis , 512 U.S. 849, 06/30/94FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK , , 12/07/15GALL, BRIAN M. v. UNITED STATES , 552 U.S. 38 (2007), 12/10/07GARLOTTE v. FORDICE, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI , 515 U.S. 39 (1995), 05/30/95GEN. DYNAMICS LAND SYS. v. CLINE, DENNIS, ET AL. , 540 U.S. 581 (2004), 02/24/04GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH, SCOTT F. , 547 U.S. 103 (2006), 03/22/06Gerald R. CARON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. , 524 U.S. 308, 06/22/98GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE v. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., et al. , 521 U.S. 457 (1997), 06/25/97GLOBAL CROSSING, INC. v. METROPHONES, INC. , 550 U.S. 45 (2007), 04/17/07GOMEZ-PEREZ, MYRNA v. POTTER, POSTMASTER GEN. , 553 U.S. 474 (2008), 05/27/08GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. v. OREGON, ET AL. , 546 U.S. 243 (2006), 01/17/06GONZALES, ATT\'Y GEN., ET AL. v. RAICH, ANGEL M., ET AL. , 545 U.S. 1 (2005), 06/06/05GONZALEZ, HOMERO v. UNITED STATES , 553 U.S. 242 (2008), 05/12/08GRAHAM, TERRANCE J. v. FLORIDA , , 05/17/10GRANHOLM, GOV. OF MI, ET AL. v. HEALD, ELEANOR, ET AL. , 544 U.S. 460 (2005), 05/16/05GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. v. BAZZLE, LYNN W., ET AL. , 539 U.S. 444 (2003), 06/23/03GROH, JEFF v. RAMIREZ, JOSEPH R., ET AL. , 540 U.S. 551 (2004), 02/24/04GUSTAFSON et al. v. ALLOYD CO., INC., fka ALLOYD HOLDINGS, INC., et al. , 513 U.S. 561 (1995), 02/28/95HALBERT, ANTONIO D. v. MICHIGAN , 545 U.S. 605 (2005), 06/23/05HAMDAN, SALIM A. v. RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE , 548 U.S. 557 (2006), 06/29/06HAMDI, YASER E. ET AL. v. RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE , 542 U.S. 507 (2004), 06/28/04HARRIS v. UNITED STATES. , 536 U.S. 545, 06/24/02HARRIS, WILLIAM J. v. UNITED STATES , 536 U.S. 545 (2002), 06/24/02Harvey F. GARLOTTE, Petitioner, v. Kirk FORDICE, Governor of Mississippi. , 515 U.S. 39, 05/30/95HAYWOOD, KEITH v. DROWN, CURTIS, ET AL. , , 05/26/09HELLING et al. v. McKINNEY , 509 U.S. 25 (1993), 06/18/93HENDERSON v. UNITED STATESCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circ , 517 U.S. 654, 05/20/96HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES , 517 U.S. 654 (1996), 05/20/96HOLLOWAY, FRANCOIS v. UNITED STATES , 526 U.S. 1 (1999), 03/02/99HOPE v. PELZER ET AL. , 536 U.S. 730, 06/27/02HOPE, LARRY v. PELZER, MARK, ET AL. , 536 U.S. 730 (2002), 06/27/02HUNT, GOV. OF NC, ET AL. v. CROMARTIE, MARTIN, ET AL. , , 04/18/01INDIANAPOLIS, IN, ET AL. v. EDMOND, JAMES, ET AL. , 531 U.S. 32 (2000), 11/28/00JACKSON, RODERICK v. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF EDUCATION , 544 U.S. 167 (2005), 03/29/05James ROWLAND, Former Director, California Department of Corrections, et al., Pe v. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, UNIT II MEN'S ADVISORY COUNCIL. , 506 U.S. 194, 01/12/93JAMES, ALPHONSO v. UNITED STATES , 550 U.S. 192 (2007), 04/18/07JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al. , PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al. , 528 U.S. 377, 01/24/00John H. EVANS, Jr., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. , 504 U.S. 255, 05/26/92JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. HARRIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, as , 510 U.S. 86 (1993), 12/13/93JOHNSON v. De GRANDY , 512 U.S. 997 (1994), 06/30/94JOHNSON, GARRISON S. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL. , 543 U.S. 499 (2005), 02/23/05JONES, GARY K. v. FLOWERS, LINDA K., ET AL. , 547 U.S. 220 (2006), 04/26/06JOYNER v. BARNES , , 06/29/15Keith J. HUDSON, Petitioner, v. Jack McMILLIAN et al. , 503 U.S. 1, 02/25/92KELLY, WILLIAM A. v. SOUTH CAROLINA , 534 U.S. 246 (2002), 01/09/02KELO, SUSETTE, ET AL. v. NEW LONDON, CT, ET AL. , 545 U.S. 469 (2005), 06/23/05KIMBROUGH, DERRICK v. UNITED STATES , 552 U.S. 85 (2007), 12/10/07Kitrich POWELL, Petitioner, v. NEVADA. , 511 U.S. 79, 03/30/94LANUS v. UNITED STATES , , 06/27/13LAWRENCE, JOHN G., ET AL. v. TEXAS , 539 U.S. 558 (2003), 06/26/03LOCKE, GOV. OF WA, ET AL. v. DAVEY, JOSHUA , 540 U.S. 712 (2004), 02/25/04LOPEZ v. MONTEREY COUNTY , 525 U.S. 266 (1999), 01/20/99LOPEZ, JOSE A. v. GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN. , 549 U.S. 47 (2006), 12/05/06M. L. B. v. S. L. J., individually and as next friend of the minor children, S. L. J. and M. , 519 U.S. 102 (1996), 12/16/96M. L. B., Petitioner, v. S. L. J., Individually and as Next Friend of the Minor Children, S. L. J. and M. , 519 U.S. 102, 12/16/96MASTROBUONO et al. v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., et al. , 514 U.S. 52 (1995), 03/06/95MATA, NOEL R. v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN. , , 06/15/15McFARLAND v. SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION , 512 U.S. 849 (1994), 06/30/94MEdIMMUNE, INC. v. GENENTECH, INC., ET AL. , 549 U.S. 118 (2007), 01/09/07MELLOULI, MOONES v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN. , , 06/01/15MILLER-EL, THOMAS J. v. COCKRELL, DIR. TX DCJ , 537 U.S. 322 (2003), 02/25/03MILLER-EL, THOMAS J. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ , 544 U.S. 660 (2005), 06/13/05MINNESOTA, ET AL. v. MILLE LACS BAND, ETC., ET AL , 526 U.S. 172 (1999), 03/24/99MITCHELL, AMANDA v. UNITED STATES , 526 U.S. 314 (1999), 04/05/99MORSE et al. v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA et al. , 517 U.S. 186 (1996), 03/27/96MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT et al. v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU et al. , 508 U.S. 286 (1993), 06/01/93MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT, et al., Petitioners, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU et al. , 508 U.S. 286, 06/01/93NASA, ET AL. v. FED. LABOR REL. AUTH., ET AL , 527 U.S. 229 (1999), 06/17/99NEGUSIE, DANIEL G. v. MUKASEY, ATT'Y GEN. , , 03/03/09NEW HAMPSHIRE RIGHT TO LIFE v. DEPARTMENT , , 11/16/15NIXON, MO ATTY. GEN., ET AL. v. SHRINK MO GOVT. PAC, ET AL. , 528 U.S. 377 (2000), 01/24/00NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., et al. v. COUNTY OF KENT, MICHIGAN, et al. , 510 U.S. 355 (1994), 01/24/94NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 533 U.S. 431, 06/25/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 531 U.S. 288, 02/20/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 36, 03/20/01NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 531 U.S. 32, 11/28/00NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 534 U.S. 246, 01/09/02NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 530 U.S. 914, 06/28/00NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 223, 04/18/01O'NEAL v. McANINCH, WARDEN , 513 U.S. 432 (1995), 02/21/95OUBRE v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. , 522 U.S. 422 (1998), 01/26/98PA STATE POLICE v. SUDERS, NANCY D. , 542 U.S. 129 (2004), 06/14/04PANETTI, SCOTT L. v. QUATERMAN, DIR., TX DCJ , 551 U.S. 930 (2007), 06/28/07PEPPER, JASON v. UNITED STATES , , 03/02/11PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS, MAYOLA , 549 U.S. 346 (2007), 02/20/07PLUMLEY v. AUSTIN , , 01/20/15POWELL v. NEVADA , 511 U.S. 79 (1994), 03/30/94PRESLEY v. GEORGIA , , 01/19/10PRESTON, ARNOLD M. v. FERRER, ALEX E. , 552 U.S. 346 (2008), 02/20/08PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY et al. v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY et al. , 511 U.S. 700 (1994), 05/31/94RIGGINS v. NEVADA , 504 U.S. 127 (1992), 05/18/92Robert O'NEAL, Petitioner, v. Fred McANINCH, Warden. , 513 U.S. 432, 02/21/95ROELL, JOSEPH C., ET AL. v. WITHROW, JON MICHAEL , 538 U.S. 580 (2003), 04/29/03ROTHGERY, WALTER A. v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TX , 554 U.S. 191 (2008), 06/23/08ROWLAND, FORMER DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. v. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, UNIT II MEN'S , 506 U.S. 194 (1993), 01/12/93RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. v. MORAN, DEBRA, ET AL. , 536 U.S. 355 (2002), 06/20/02SCARBOROUGH, RANDALL C. v. PRINCIPI, SEC VETERANS AFFAIRS , 541 U.S. 401 (2004), 05/03/04SCHWARZENEGGER, GOV. OF CA v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS, ET AL. , , 06/27/11SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. KMART CORP. , 511 U.S. 222 (1994), 05/16/94SHAFER, WESLEY A. v. SOUTH CAROLINA , 532 U.S. 36 (2001), 03/20/01SHALALA, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL v. IL COUNCIL, LONG TERM CARE , 529 U.S. 1 (2000), 02/29/00SKINNER, HENRY W. v. SWITZER, LYNN , , 03/07/11SMALL, GARY S. v. UNITED STATES , 544 U.S. 385 (2005), 04/26/05SNYDER, ALLEN v. LOUISIANA , 552 U.S. 472 (2008), 03/19/08STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. v. CAMPBELL, CURTIS, ET UX. , 538 U.S. 408 (2003), 04/07/03State of WYOMING, Plaintiff v. State of OKLAHOMA. , 502 U.S. 437, 01/22/92STENBERG, NE ATTY. GEN. v. CARHART, LEROY , 530 U.S. 914 (2000), 06/28/00STEWART v. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL , 523 U.S. 637 (1998), 05/18/98SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 526 U.S. 473, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 526 U.S. 172, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 527 U.S. 229, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES v. , 526 U.S. 314, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES119 S.Ct. 2176138 F.3d 893, affirmed in part, v. , 527 U.S. 581, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES119 S.Ct. 966 143 L.Ed.2d 1 v. , 526 U.S. 1, 00/00/00SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESCEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITI v. GARRET F., a minor by his mother and next friend, CHARLENE F. , 526 U.S. 66, 03/03/99SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESCITY OF CHICAGO, PETITIONER v. JESUS MORALES et al. , 527 U.S. 41, 06/10/99SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 529 U.S. 667, 00/00/00SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 529 U.S. 1, 00/00/00TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING , 535 U. S. 302 (2002), 04/23/02TENNARD, ROBERT J. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ , 542 U.S. 274 (2004), 06/24/04TENNESSEE v. LANE, GEORGE, ET AL. , 541 U.S. 509 (2004), 05/17/04Terry FOUCHA, Petitioner v. LOUISIANA. , 504 U.S. 71, 05/18/92Terry STEWART, Director, Arizona Department of Correction, et al., Petitioners, v. Ramon MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL. , 523 U.S. 637, 05/18/98THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY, dba THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL v. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES , 512 U.S. 504 (1994), 06/24/94THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY, dba Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Petitione v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services. , 512 U.S. 504, 06/24/94THOMPSON v. KEOHANE, WARDEN, et al. , 516 U.S. 99 (1996)., 11/29/95TN STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORP. v. HOOD, PAMELA L. , 541 U.S. 440 (2004), 05/17/04TORY, ULYSSES, ET AL. v. COCHRAN, JOHNNIE L. , 544 U.S. 734 (2005), 05/31/05TURNER, MICHAEL D. v. PRICE, REBECCA, ET AL. , , 06/20/11U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al. v. THORNTON et al. , 514 U.S. 779 (1995), 05/22/95U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Ray THORNTON et al. Winston BRYANT, Attorney General of Arkansas, Petitioner, v. , 514 U.S. 779, 05/22/95UNITED STATES v. CRAFT, SANDRA L. , 535 U.S. 274 (2002), 04/17/02UNITED STATES v. BOOKER, FREDDIE J. , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), 01/12/05UNITED STATES v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE , 537 U.S. 465 (2003), 03/04/03UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK, GRAYDON E., ET AL. , , 05/17/10UNITED STATES v. CRAFT. , 535 U.S. 274, 04/17/02UNITED STATES By and Through INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Petitioner, v. Bruce J. McDERMOTT, et al. , 507 U.S. 448, 03/24/93UNITED STATES, Petitioner 04-104 v. Freddie J. BOOKERUNITED STATES, PETITIONER 04-105v.Ducan FANFANSUPREME COURT OF , 543 U.S. 220, 00/00/00VARITY CORP. v. HOWE et al. , 516 U.S. 489 (1996), 03/19/96VARITY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Charles HOWE et al. , 516 U.S. 489, 03/19/96VIRGINIA v. BLACK, BARRY E., ET AL. , 538 U.S. 343 (2003), 04/07/03WHITMAN v. UNITED STATES , , 11/10/14Concur in part, dissent in partANZA, JOSEPH, ET AL. v. IDEAL STEEL SUPPLY CORP. , 547 U.S. 451 (2006), 06/05/06AT&T CORP. v. IOWA UTILITIES BD. , , 01/25/99AT&T CORP. et al. v. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD et al.Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for , 525 U.S. 366, 01/25/99BANKS, DELMA, JR. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ , 540 U.S. 668 (2004), 02/24/04BATES, DENNIS, ET AL. v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC , 544 U.S. 431 (2005), 04/27/05CAMPBELL v. LOUISIANA , 523 U.S. 392 (1998), 04/21/98CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF U.S. v. USDC DC , 542 U.S. 367 (2004), 06/24/04CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION , , 01/21/10COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE et al. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION , 518 U.S. 604 (1996), 06/26/96CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. EASTERWOOD , 507 U.S. 658 (1993), 04/21/93CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioner, v. Lizzie Beatrice EASTERWOOD. Lizzie Beatrice EASTERWOOD, Petitioner, v. CSX TRANS , 507 U.S. 658, 04/21/93CUOMO, ATT'Y GEN. OF NY v. CLEARING HOUSE ASSOC., ET AL. , , 06/29/09DAVIS, ADRIAN M. v. WASHINGTON , 547 U.S. 813 (2006), 06/19/06DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC., et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. , 518 U.S. 727 (1996), 06/28/96GRUTTER, BARBARA v. BOLLINGER, LEE, ET AL. , 539 U.S. 306 (2003), 06/23/03HILLSIDE DAIRY, ET AL. v. LYONS, SEC., FOOD AND AGRIC. , 539 U.S. 59 (2003), 06/09/03HOLDER, individually and in his official capacity as COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR BLE v. HALL et al. , 512 U.S. 874 (1994), 06/30/94KIMEL, J. DANIEL, ET AL. v. FL BOARD OF REGENTS, ET AL. , , 01/11/00McCONNELL, SENATOR, ET AL. v. FEC, ET AL. , 540 U.S. 93 (2003), 12/10/03MEACHAM, CLIFFORD B., ET AL. v. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LAB., ET AL. , , 06/19/08NATL. CABLE TV ASSN., INC. v. GULF POWER CO., ET AL. , 534 U.S. 327 (2002), 01/16/02NEW YORK et al. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ET AL. , 535 U.S. 1, 03/04/02NEW YORK, ET AL. v. FERC, ET AL. , 535 U.S. 1 (2002), 03/04/02NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUN. UTIL. v. MUKASEY, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. , , 06/22/09NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v. , 532 U.S. 557, 05/21/01PENRY, JOHNNY PAUL v. JOHNSON, DIR. TX DCJ , 532 U.S. 782 (2001), 06/04/01SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. REDDING, APRIL , , 06/25/09SPECTOR, DOUGLAS, ET AL. v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. , 545 U.S. 119 (2005), 06/06/05State of NEBRASKA, Plaintiff, v. States of WYOMING AND COLORADO. , 515 U.S. 1, 05/30/95SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as i v. , 528 U.S. 62, 00/00/00Terry CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. LOUISIANA. , 523 U.S. 392, 04/21/98UNITED STATES v. ALASKA , 474 U.S. 1044 (1986), 06/19/97UNITED STATES v. O'HAGAN , U.S. 642 (1997), 06/25/97UNITED STATES v. HATTER, JUDGE, ET AL. , 532 U.S. 557 (2001), 05/21/01UNITED STATES v. REORGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., et al. , 518 U.S. 213 (1996), 06/20/96UNITED STATES v. JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY et al. , 510 U.S. 43 (1993), 12/13/93UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF ALASKA. , 521 U.S. 1, 06/19/97UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY ET AL. , 510 U.S. 43, 10/06/93UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. James Herman O'HAGAN. , 521 U.S. 642, 06/25/97UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. REORGANIZED CF & I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., et al. , 518 U.S. 213, 06/20/96UTAH ET AL. v. EVANS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. , 536 U.S. 452, 06/20/02UTAH, ET AL. v. EVANS, SEC. OF COMMERCE , 536 U.S. 452 (2002), 06/20/02

It may be helpful to review the facts about RICO, what RICO actually is, why it might apply wrt Trump, et al, why other federal laws might be better for Mueller, and overall what the current status is, as of 2018. I post the following from Sidebars: Reflections on White Collar Crime and Federal Criminal Law - RICO charges and the Mueller investigationIt would be worth your time to review the other coverage at Sidebars. here goes -—————————————————————RICO and the Mueller InvestigationJANUARY 16, 2018 / RANDALL ELIASONSpecial Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has produced guilty pleas from two individuals and the indictment of two more. It remains to be seen what additional charges, if any, will follow. Some have floated the idea that Mueller might consider charging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. Although originally aimed at organized crime, RICO can be a powerful tool in complex white collar cases as well.So could Mueller be mulling RICO charges? RICO could potentially apply – depending on what Mueller finds, of course. But in the end I think he’s unlikely to play the RICO card.Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, IIIThe Different Areas of Mueller’s InvestigationThe potential charges in Mueller’s investigation vary depending on which of several possible tracks the investigation follows. The first such track involves the heart of Mueller’s inquiry: any crimes directly related to Russian interference with the election and possible collaboration by Trump campaign officials. If prosecutors find evidence of those crimes, charges could include conspiracy to defraud the United States or conspiracy to violate federal election laws or computer hacking laws.A second investigative track includes cover-up crimes: false statements, perjury or obstruction of justice in connection with the Russia probe. This could include lying to the FBI during interviews, lying on security clearance forms, false testimony before Congress or in the grand jury, or efforts to obstruct the investigation. Two cooperating witnesses, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, have already pleaded guilty to false statements for lying to the FBI. There have been allegations that Jared Kushner and Attorney General Jeff Sessions may have unlawfully concealed contacts they had with Russians during the campaign. And claims that the president himself may have obstructed justice through such actions as firing James Comey have been a key part of the investigation.There is a potential third track as well: the possibility that while investigating connections between Trump and Russia Mueller will uncover other crimes not directly related to the campaign. The charges filed against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, for example, include allegations of years of money laundering involving Ukrainian connections that predated the campaign. The infamous Russia “dossier” includes claims about ties between Russian individuals and the Trump organization that could involve crimes such as international money laundering. In Michael Wolff’s controversial new book Fire and Fury, former Trump advisor Steve Bannon also predicts that money laundering involving Russia will end up a centerpiece of Mueller’s probe.Mueller’s investigation could result in charges in any one of these areas. RICO is potentially a better fit for some than for others.A Quick Primer on RICOCongress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act in 1970. As its name suggests, RICO’s primary purpose was to give the federal government new tools to prosecute criminal groups, such as organized crime families, seeking to infiltrate and control legitimate organizations. But the breadth of RICO’s language has made it possible for prosecutors to apply it in more routine white collar business and corruption cases as well.RICO doesn’t really define a new crime. Instead, it prohibits engaging in a sustained pattern of already criminal activity in connection with a business or other “enterprise.” This has led one prominent commentator to characterize RICO as “the crime of being a criminal.” RICO provides hefty penalties of up to twenty years in prison, as well as forfeiture of any assets related to or derived from the criminal activity.Every RICO case shares two requirements: proof of an “enterprise,” and proof of a “pattern of racketeering activity.”Enterprise: In some RICO cases the enterprise is the organization through which the defendants commit their criminal acts, such as an organized crime family. In other cases the enterprise is more like a victim, such as a legitimate corporation or labor union that is infiltrated by the RICO defendants through their criminal activity.Enterprise is defined in the statute to include any legal entity such as a corporation or partnership. An enterprise may also consist of a group of individuals associated together but not a legal entity, called an “association in fact” enterprise. Rejecting arguments that RICO should be limited to cases involving formal business organizations, the Supreme Court has made it clear that an association in fact enterprise need not have any legitimate purpose or formal structure. Any group of individuals who come together to commit a series of crimes may potentially be characterized as an association in fact enterprise. Another name for such a criminal group, of course, is a conspiracy – and the breadth of the enterprise definition has led some to suggest that RICO is simply a conspiracy statute on steroids.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Every RICO case also requires the government to prove a “pattern of racketeering activity.” This requirement has two components: there must be acts of racketeering activity, and those acts must form a “pattern.”Racketeering activity is defined in the statute to include a lengthy list of federal crimes. It includes many offenses traditionally associated with organized crime such as narcotics, illegal gambling, extortion, and trafficking in stolen goods. It also includes a number of white collar offenses such as bribery, mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering. The inclusion of these crimes as “racketeering activity” is what makes RICO potentially applicable to many white collar cases.Racketeering activity also includes crimes such as murder, kidnapping, extortion and arson that are punishable under state criminal laws. This was one of RICO’s more powerful innovations: federal prosecutors could now take a widespread group committing different crimes previously punishable only at the state level, package the crimes as a RICO case, and bring a single prosecution in federal court. In organized crime cases where local prosecutors were either unable or unwilling to bring charges, RICO allowed the federal government to step in and take those organizations down.A “pattern” of racketeering activity requires at least two different instances of racketeering activity no more than ten years apart. In reality, a pattern usually involves far more than two acts. The Supreme Court held in H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. that a pattern requires proof of “continuity plus relationship” among the acts of racketeering. The acts must have the same or similar purpose, results, participants, victims or methods of commission or be otherwise interrelated, and must take place over some substantial period of time.RICO contains four different prohibitions:Section 1962(a) prohibits using the income generated by a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire an interest in, or to establish or operate, any enterprise. A violation of 1962(a) is a two-step process: the defendant earns money from a pattern of racketeering activity, and then uses that money to invest in or operate the enterprise. This is the type of offense at which RICO was primarily aimed: the infiltration of businesses and other organizations by those who earned their money through criminal operations.Section 1962(b) is similar to 1962(a) but involves only a one-step process. It prohibits using the racketeering activity directly to acquire an interest in or control over an enterprise. This would apply, for example, to a criminal organization using extortion or bribery to control the behavior of those operating a business or government organization.Section 1962(c) is by far the most commonly-used RICO provision. It prohibits any individual employed by or associated with an enterprise from conducting or participating in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. In Reves v. Ernst & Young the Supreme Court adopted the “operation or management” test for determining who is covered by this section. To participate in the conduct of an enterprise’s affairs a defendant must have some role in the operation or management of the enterprise and not just be a low-level employee following orders.Finally, Section 1962(d) is a conspiracy provision, making it a crime to conspire to violate sections (a), (b), or (c).RICO Charges and the Mueller InvestigationDue to RICO’s breadth, there is little doubt it could theoretically apply to a number of the allegations surrounding the Russia investigation. Whether RICO would make sense and exactly how it could apply would depend on the nature of the crimes Mueller ended up pursuing.First, there are several different enterprises that would satisfy RICO. One would be the Trump campaign, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. As a corporation, the campaign itself qualifies as an enterprise. If Mueller determined that individuals conducted the campaign’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, RICO section 1962(c) could apply.Another potential enterprise would be the Trump Organization itself, or any one of its subsidiary corporations. If the investigation were focused more on the Trump Organization’s financial ties with Russian individuals, that could lead to charges that Trump and others participated in the conduct of the Trump Organization’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity under 1962(c), or used funds generated by a pattern of racketeering activity to operate the Trump Organization under 1962(a).There also could be an association-in-fact enterprise made up of various individuals involved In the campaign. Again, this requirement is essentially equivalent to a conspiracy, so if individuals in the campaign were engaged in a pattern of criminal acts prosecutors could potentially name that group as an enterprise and charge their activity under RICO.For the pattern of racketeering activity, the most obvious candidate is money laundering. If there are charges similar to those against Manafort involving ties between Russian individuals and the Trump Organization, long-term money laundering schemes could easily be charged as a pattern of racketeering activity used to fund and operate the Trump Organization.If the criminal focus is on the campaign itself and a possible conspiracy with Russian individuals, a potential pattern of racketeering activity is less obvious. The most likely criminal violations, including election crimes and computer crimes, do not qualify as “racketeering activity.” Any crimes involving Russian interference with the election probably also took place over a relatively limited and discrete period of time and might lack the continuity necessary to form a pattern.As far as cover-up crimes are concerned, obstruction of justice does qualify as racketeering activity, although false statements and perjury do not. If prosecutors found a long-running pattern of obstruction of justice related to the campaign and its aftermath, that might qualify as a pattern of racketeering activity. The enterprise could be the campaign itself or an association in fact of individuals involved in the campaign. The charge would be that the defendants conducted the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of obstruction of justice designed to thwart investigations by the FBI or Congress.Why RICO Charges Are UnlikelyRICO’s breadth makes it a potential charge in Mueller’s investigation, particularly if the investigation ends up focusing on international money laundering involving the Trump Organization. On the other hand, if all Mueller finds is a pattern of obstructive conduct, using RICO would seem like an unnecessary stretch. But in the end, regardless of what Mueller uncovers, RICO charges are probably unlikely.One reason they’re unlikely is that Mueller simply doesn’t need RICO. If you’re prosecuting a gang for a series of state law crimes, or a massive global conspiracy like the FIFA corruption case, RICO can be a useful tool. But in most federal white collar cases, RICO really doesn’t get prosecutors much that they can’t already get through charges such as conspiracy, fraud, and money laundering. RICO’s twenty-year penalty used to be unusual, but now is the norm for more routine federal crimes including mail and wire fraud and obstruction. Other statutes, including money laundering, also allow prosecutors to seek forfeiture. It’s hard to see what RICO would add to Mueller’s already substantial arsenal. Why spend time and effort proving complicated concepts like a pattern of racketeering activity to a jury when you can just focus on the underlying crimes themselves?A second reason is that all criminal RICO charges must be approved by the Organized Crime and Gang section in the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. Main Justice requires all federal prosecutors to obtain this approval in order to ensure RICO is used only in cases where it is truly appropriate and necessary. The DOJ guidelinesprovide that RICO charges will not be approved in cases where other federal statutes can adequately address the misconduct.The special counsel regulations provide that Mueller is subject to all DOJ rules, regulations, and procedures. That means he would have to seek review and approval of any RICO charges by Main Justice – something Mueller is probably (and understandably) reluctant to do. Mueller does not want the Sessions Justice Department second-guessing his prosecutorial decisions. He also would need to be concerned about leaks that might come out of DOJ if he submitted charges for their review. (This also may be the reason tax crimes were not included in the Manafort indictment, even though they seemed like fairly obvious charges. Charging tax crimes would have required Mueller to seek review and approval from the DOJ Tax Division.)We have some hints from the Manafort indictment about how Mueller may view these questions. Given the nature of those charges, RICO would have been an easy fit. Prosecutors could readily have charged that Manafort and his co-defendant Richard Gates funded and operated Manafort’s consulting firms (the enterprises) through a pattern of racketeering activity (money laundering) over a number of years. But Mueller chose not to include RICO charges.In the nearly half-century since RICO was passed, its significance for white collar cases has diminished. Federal prosecutors have more — and usually better — options now. RICO still carries a certain mystique, and Trump’s critics may find the idea of RICO allegations of a grand conspiracy appealing. But no matter what else the special counsel’s investigation turns up, we are unlikely to see a RICO indictment.Bold Update, Fri, Aug 31, 2018.Paul Krugman, among his many accomplishments, writes a daily article in the New York Times. He wrote one on November 15, 2015 entitled The Regime Change Problem in American Politics. At that time (3 years ago) I made the following comment. I post it here, in its entirety, because what I wrote then seems to becoming more likely, with the passage of time:: ——————————-In economics, as in political science - predicting a catastrophe is extremely difficult. Perhaps what we are experiencing is that exceptionally rare event - a catastrophe: the Death of a Political party.The last instance of such a catastrophe in American politics, was the collapse of the Whig Party in 1850’s. The coalition of interests which had formed the party were unable to maintain the alliance. The Whigs failed to nominate a candidate for the presidential election, and in rather short order, the Whigs disappeared from American national politics.At the core of the many disagreements leading to this consequence was a high visibility, major social policy issue: How do we as a nation balance our Democratic philosophy with our extent social structures.The next 12 months may be very instructive, indeed.