Form 533 B Ohio: Fill & Download for Free


Download the form

How to Edit Your Form 533 B Ohio Online Easily and Quickly

Follow these steps to get your Form 533 B Ohio edited with ease:

  • Click the Get Form button on this page.
  • You will be forwarded to our PDF editor.
  • Try to edit your document, like adding text, inserting images, and other tools in the top toolbar.
  • Hit the Download button and download your all-set document for the signing purpose.
Get Form

Download the form

We Are Proud of Letting You Edit Form 533 B Ohio With a Streamlined Workflow

Explore More Features Of Our Best PDF Editor for Form 533 B Ohio

Get Form

Download the form

How to Edit Your Form 533 B Ohio Online

When dealing with a form, you may need to add text, give the date, and do other editing. CocoDoc makes it very easy to edit your form just in your browser. Let's see how do you make it.

  • Click the Get Form button on this page.
  • You will be forwarded to our online PDF editor webpage.
  • In the the editor window, click the tool icon in the top toolbar to edit your form, like inserting images and checking.
  • To add date, click the Date icon, hold and drag the generated date to the field to fill out.
  • Change the default date by modifying the date as needed in the box.
  • Click OK to ensure you successfully add a date and click the Download button to use the form offline.

How to Edit Text for Your Form 533 B Ohio with Adobe DC on Windows

Adobe DC on Windows is a must-have tool to edit your file on a PC. This is especially useful when you have need about file edit in your local environment. So, let'get started.

  • Click and open the Adobe DC app on Windows.
  • Find and click the Edit PDF tool.
  • Click the Select a File button and select a file to be edited.
  • Click a text box to change the text font, size, and other formats.
  • Select File > Save or File > Save As to keep your change updated for Form 533 B Ohio.

How to Edit Your Form 533 B Ohio With Adobe Dc on Mac

  • Browser through a form and Open it with the Adobe DC for Mac.
  • Navigate to and click Edit PDF from the right position.
  • Edit your form as needed by selecting the tool from the top toolbar.
  • Click the Fill & Sign tool and select the Sign icon in the top toolbar to make a signature for the signing purpose.
  • Select File > Save to save all the changes.

How to Edit your Form 533 B Ohio from G Suite with CocoDoc

Like using G Suite for your work to finish a form? You can integrate your PDF editing work in Google Drive with CocoDoc, so you can fill out your PDF just in your favorite workspace.

  • Integrate CocoDoc for Google Drive add-on.
  • Find the file needed to edit in your Drive and right click it and select Open With.
  • Select the CocoDoc PDF option, and allow your Google account to integrate into CocoDoc in the popup windows.
  • Choose the PDF Editor option to move forward with next step.
  • Click the tool in the top toolbar to edit your Form 533 B Ohio on the target field, like signing and adding text.
  • Click the Download button to keep the updated copy of the form.

PDF Editor FAQ

How strong is the US military?

Very much true.The US military has massive power projection, more than any country in the history of man. The US has 11 (CATOBAR/STOBAR) Aircraft Carriers, while the next country has 1 which is, China, Russia, India, UK, and France. Also, the US Carriers are not just regular carriers, they are known as Super Carriers. Which is a term coined by the public to say that these carriers are so large that they exceed the definition of an Aircraft Carrier. Also, the US carriers were designed in the 70’s and countries are now just starting to make designs that could compete with the American Carriers. However, the US just redesigned the carrier and is coming out with the new Gerald R. Ford Class Carrier, which is supposed to be years possibly decades ahead of any other countries design. If you include Helicopter Carriers, and Amphibious Assault ships, that number jumps up to 20, soon to be 22. Then the next highest is tied between Japan and France with 4. My favorite part about the US having so many Aicraft Carriers is that if we divided them up between the major oceans, we could have 4 in each ocean… Crazy. The US carriers are also nuclear powered, they are the only carriers to be nuclear powered besides the French R91 Charles de Gaulle.Note the types of planes on the US Carriers. If you look at the USS Gerald R. Ford, it is fielding 5 different aircraft. 4 planes and 1 helicopter. We will look at the planes. Woden note, the USN has the 2nd largest Air Force in the world, right behind the USAF.First plane- McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet: The plane is one of the most decorated planes, with thousands of successful missions, while requiring 3x less maintenance and failures than its counterparts. The plane has electronic warfare capabilities, air to air, and air to ground capabilities. Also, has spy and early warning capabilities. It was one of the first aircraft to heavily use multifunction displays, which at the switch of a button allow a pilot to perform either fighter or attack roles or both. The airframe is complex yet so simple, that a 4 man team can remove and install a new F404 engine in 40 minutes. Was also one of the very first 4th generation fighter on an aircraft carrier.Second plane- Northrop Grumman X-47B: This guy will be the very first and only Carrier based Drone. Northrop Grumman intends to develop the prototype X-47B into a battlefield-ready aircraft, the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system, which will enter service in the 2020s. So it’ll have strike options and surveillance capabilities.Third plane- Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye: Many countries have AWAC systems or Airborne early warning and control. But only the United States have a Carrier based AWAC system. With the creation of this system, carriers that are hundreds of miles away from the nearest AWAC system, this plane gives the ability for a carrier strike group to potentially detect fifth-generation fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-57 and the Chinese Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 farther out. Also, gives the ability to guide fleet weapons, such as AIM-120 AMRAAM and SM-6 missiles, onto targets beyond a launch platform's detection range or capabilities.Fourth plane- Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II: This plane is the first and only carrier based 5th Generation Stealth fighter. The plane is meant as an air superiority fighter and a plane capable of ground support. It also has a very low, almost undetectable, cross section and radar signature. Besides radar stealth measures, the F-35 incorporates infrared signature and visual signature reduction measures. With the addition of a 5th generation stealth fighter, this gives the US military and Navy, the opportunity to do more damage and to have true air superiority over all other aircraft carrier based planes and land based planes. The US, in the event of a war, can now bring 5th gen fighters to the battle without the need of the Air Force against other 4th gen fighters, or possibly the few Chinese or Russian 5th gen fighters.Furthermore, the US have some of the best destroyers on the planet. With the highly acclaimed Arleigh-Burke Class Destroyer, and the brand new, low production Zumwalt Class Destroyer. The US has the most destroyers in the world with about double the next country, with another 4 undergoing sea trials and we are currently building 5 more and have awarded contracts for 5 more. By 2024 the US is expected to have 79 destroyers in service.Zumwalt Destroyer- The Zumwalt class warships are the largest destroyer ever built. The USS Zumwalt has unusual hull design optimized for wave piercing. There is a composite deckhouse. Angular shape minimizes its radar signature. The ship has hidden radar and sensors. The despite its size the USS Zumwalt has a radar signature of a fishing boat. Also it has reduced sound and infrared signature what makes this ship harder to detect. The ship is the First american surface warship to integrate electronic propulsion, it generates enough power to light up a small city. Sound levels of the Zumwalt are comparable with Los Angeles class submarines.Arleigh-Burke Destroyer- These guided missile destroyers entered service with the US Navy in 1991 were the first large US Navy vessel designed to incorporate stealth shaping techniques to reduce radar cross-section. Also these are one of the biggest destroyers in the world that incorporate highly advanced weaponry and systems. Hull profile of the Arleight Burke class significantly improves seakeeping, permitting high speeds to be maintained in difficult sea states. The AN/SPY-1D phased array radar incorporates significant advances in the detection capabilities of the AEGIS weapons system, particularly in its resistance to enemy electronic countermeasures. Missile are stored in vertical launch systems, that can also house smaller Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) missiles, Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, ASROC anti-submarine missiles. For point defense the ships are equipped with two Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS). Also there are 324 mm launchers for Mk.46 or Mk.50 torpedoes.Daily dose of freedom right here.Obviously, we can’t forget about the immaculate US submarine fleet. The US has some of the most advanced and quietest submarines. All of them use nuclear propulsion for extended range and stealth capabilities. The US has the…Ohio class (18 in commission) – 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)- The U.S. Ohio-class submarines, of which 14 are Trident II SSBN, each capable of carrying 24 SLBMs. The first four which were all equipped with the older Trident I missiles have been converted to SSGN's each capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk guided missiles and have been further equipped to support Special OperationsSeawolf class (3 in commission) – attack submarines- The Seawolf class boats were intended to seek and destroy the latest Soviet ballistic missile submarines, such as the Typhoon class and attack submarines such as the Akula class. Seawolf class submarines are arguably the quietest submarines in the world ever constructed. It is exceptionally quiet even at high speeds. Most submarines need to keep their speed down to as little as 5 knots to avoid detection by passive sonar arrays, while the Seawolf class are credited with being able to cruise at 20 kots and still be impossible to locate. A Seawolf at 25 knots makes less noise than an older Los Angeles class submarine tied up alongside the pier. And these came out in 1989.Virginia class (11 in commission, 5 under construction, 2 on order) – fast attack submarines- The Virginia class submarines incorporate newly designed anechoic coating, isolated deck structures and new design of propulsor to achieve low acoustic signature. It is claimed that noise level of the Virginia is equal to that of the Seawolf class. The Virginia class submarines are fitted with 12 vertical launch system (VLS) tubes. These are used to launched Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles with a range of 1 700 km. Also there are four 533-mm torpedo tubes. These are used to fire a total of 26 Mk.48 heavyweight torpedoes and Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles. It is the first US submarine to employ a built-in Navy SEAL staging area allowing a team of 9 men to enter and leave the submarine.(Improved) Los Angeles class (34 in commission, 2 in reserve) – attack submarines- The Improved submarines are much quieter. It is described that improved Los Angeles class boats are 7 times quieter than the original Los Angeles class boats. The class features a very potent weapon array, including Mk.48 torpedoes, Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles. Tomahawk missiles can be launched from torpedo tubes of from dedicated vertical launching systems. These boats can operate under ice where the Russian ballistic missile submarines tend to hide.Surfacing of a US Submarine.Let’s move onto the air. While the USN has a quite capable Air Force. But that is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude and strength of the United States Air Force. The Air Force articulates its core missions as air and space superiority, global integrated ISR, rapid global mobility, global strike, and command and control. The USAF flys a multitude of different planes and helicopters. The USAF is the largest Air Force in the world, here is the list of what America flys. Most of these are at the cutting edge of innovation, with two of them being 5th generation stealth fighters. That’s really really good because no other country has an active 5th gen while the US has 2. The USAF also has the largest bomber, tanker, fighter, and transport fleets in the world. The USAF has so many staging areas around the world, that the US can have bombers or any other planes on station, anywhere around the world in a matter of hours.Attack: A-10, AC-130, MQ-1, MQ-9Bomber: B-1B, B-2, B-52HElectronic warfare: E-3, E-8, EC-130Fighter: F-15C, F-15E, F-16, F-22 (5th gen), F-35A (5th gen)Helicopter: HH-60, UH-1NReconnaissance: MC-12, RC-135, RQ-4, RQ-170, U-2, U-28Trainer: T-1, T-6, T-38, T-41, T-51, T-53, TG-16Transport: C-5, C-12, C-17, C-21, C-32, C-37, C-130, C-40, CV-22, VC-25Tanker: KC-10, KC-135Let’s look at the two of my favorite ones and the most technologically advanced planes in the world.F-22 RaptorThe F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter is almost invisible to radars. This aircraft carries a powerful array of weaponry. It is the most advanced and most expensive production fighter aircraft to date. Many of sensors and avionics of this plane remain classified. Engines of the raptor allow the aircraft to supercruise over long ranges, while thrust-vectoring nozzles, combined with a triplex fly-by-wire flight control system, make it exceptionally maneuverable. The highly integrated avionics systems also include a data-link, inertial navigation system with embedded GPS for high-accuracy navigation, and advanced electronic warfare, warning and countermeasures systems. Two central computers manage the automatic switching of the sensors between completely passive and wholly active operation, according to the tactical situation. Artificial intelligence algorithms fuse data from the sensors and present only relevant information to the pilot to reduce workload while at the same time improving tactical awareness. The datalink allows tactical information to be shared with other F-22s. The tech is so special that other countries, not even NATO allies are given the chance to procure the plane.B-2 SpiritThe B-2A Spirit is the silver bullet of US policy, reserved for use against targets of the highest priority. The B-2's stealth characteristics enable the undetected penetration of sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses and to attack even heavily defended targets. This stealth comes from a combination of reduced acoustic, infrared, visual and radar signatures (multi-spectral camouflage) to evade the various detection systems that could be used to detect and be used to direct attacks against an aircraft. Composites are extensively used to provide a radar-absorbent honeycomb structure; the bomber has a minimal IR signature, does not contrail and uses its shielded APQ-181 radar only momentarily to identify a target just before attacking. The onboard DMS is capable of automatically assessing the detection capabilities of identified threats and indicated targets. The DMS will be upgraded by 2021 to detect radar emissions from air defenses to allow changes to the auto-router's mission planning information while in-flight so it can receive new data quickly to plan a route that minimizes exposure to dangers. Also, most of the B-2s are stationed in Missouri, and they are capable of bombing any target in the world despite being in the heart of America.Now for the US ARMYThe US army it self is massive in numbers, coming in at 1.01 million personnel, it self is one of the biggest standing armies in the world, and that's just one branch of the US military. Also, in the US military, it is the largest branch out of them all surpassing any other branch by almost 600,000 personnel. They provide the bulk of security for the US's foreign interests. The mission of the U.S. Army is to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained, land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders. Which is mainly air domination and land domination. They mainly engage is conventional warfare, and asymmetrical warfare. The US Army's main responsibilities is preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States, Supporting the national policies, Implementing the national objectives, Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States. The US Army is also home to some of the most dangerous, prestigious and hardest working special forces teams in the world such as the frontline special force, the Rangers, we also have the green berets and the iconic 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Airborne) also known as Delta Force. The US army is thought to be one of the most battle tested and battle proven militaries in the world. With the mobility of the USAF an army QRF can be anywhere on earth in less than 24 hours. The US ARMY uses the M1A2 Abrams tank. One of the most badass, heaviest, fastest, and battle hardened tanks in the world.This tank has incredible technology and armor. Also it has seen combat. It is one of the most feared MBTs. The M1A2 offers significant protection against all well-known anti-tank weapons. This main battle tank uses advanced armor, reinforced with depleted uranium layers. The M1A2 has significant level of protection against all known anti-tank weapons. It can also employ counter-IED equipment. The tank is armed with the same 120-mm M256 smoothbore gun as its predecessor. Range of effective fire is in excess of 4 km. This main battle tank is powered by a Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine, developing 1 500 hp. The tank is one of the fastest in the world, clocking in (with no governor) at 60 mph while being THE heaviest tank in the world. As of April of 2018, the US has no combat losses with the Abrams, the Abrams has only been lost due to friendly fire, never to enemy fire.I don’t think I need to explain the marines. Just know that they use the same tech as the Army (with some exceptions) but they are also the main invasion force for the US. And they are badass.The US military reach is massive with the Aircraft carriers and the 700+ military bases around the world. The US is truly the most powerful military in the world. The fact that they can have a men anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours and being able to bomb any place on earth, just proves how powerful the US military is.

How did Kim Davis (the county clerk who refused to issue a marriage licence to gay couples) end up in jail? As much a I disagree with her principles, I am uncomfortable with anything that smacks of imprisoning people for their beliefs.

Although this link has been posted in a comment, I want to specifically post a link to the actual judgment.It's a model of clear thinking, and should be read beginning to end for a full overview: Google ScholarEdit to add: I've added the full text below for those who cannot click the link:________________________________APRIL MILLER, et al. Plaintiffs.v.KIM DAVIS, individually and in her official capacity, et al., Defendants.Civil Action No. 15-44-DLB.United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland.August 12, 2015.MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERDAVID L. BUNNING, District Judge.I. IntroductionThis matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2). Plaintiffs are two same-sex and two opposite-sex couples seeking to enjoin Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from enforcing her own marriage licensing policy. On June 26, 2015, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage, Davis announced that the Rowan County Clerk's Office would no longer issue marriage licenses to anycouples. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Davis, an Apostolic Christian with a sincere religious objection to same-sex marriage, specifically sought to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples without discriminating against them. Plaintiffs now allege that this "no marriage licenses" policy substantially interferes with their right to marry because it effectively forecloses them from obtaining a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy poses only an incidental burden on Plaintiffs' right to marry, which is justified by the need to protect her own free exercise rights.The Court held preliminary injunction hearings on July 13, 2015 and July 20, 2015. Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier were represented by William Sharp of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") and Daniel Canon. Jonathan Christman and Roger Gannam, both of the Liberty Counsel, and A.C. Donahue appeared on behalf of Defendant Kim Davis. Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins and Jeff Mando represented Defendant Rowan County. Official Court Reporters Peggy Weber and Lisa Wiesman recorded the proceedings. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the Court submitted the Motion pending receipt of the parties' response and reply briefs. The Court having received those filings (Docs. # 28, 29 and 36), this matter is now ripe for review.At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party's rights. The tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by answering one simple question: Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same-sex marriage? For reasons stated herein, the Court answers this question in the negative.II. Factual and Procedural BackgroundPlaintiffs April Miller and Karen Roberts have been in a committed same-sex relationship for eleven years. (Doc. # 21 at 25). After hearing about the Obergefelldecision, they went to the Rowan County Clerk's Office and requested a marriage license from one of the deputy clerks. (Id. at 25-26). The clerk immediately excused herself and went to speak with Kim Davis. (Id. at 28). When she returned, she informed the couple that the Rowan County Clerk's Office was not issuing any marriage licenses. (Id.). Plaintiffs Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez, a committed opposite-sex couple, had a similar experience when they tried to obtain a marriage license from the Rowan County Clerk's Office. (Id. at 36).Both couples went straight to Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins and asked him to issue their marriage licenses. (Id. at 30-32, 36). Blevins explained that, under Kentucky law, a county judge executive can only issue licenses when the elected county clerk is absent. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.240. Because Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, Blevins concluded that she was not "absent" within the meaning of the statute. (Id.). Therefore, he did not believe that he had the authority to issue their marriage licenses. (Id.).Plaintiffs Barry Spartman and Aaron Skaggs also planned to solemnize their long-term relationship post-Obergefell. (Id. at 42-44). Before going to the Rowan County Clerk's Office, they phoned ahead and asked for information about the marriage licensing process. (Id.). They wanted to make sure that they brought all necessary documentation with them. (Id.). One of the deputy clerks told the couple "not to bother coming down" because they would not be issued a license. (Id.).Seven neighboring counties (Bath, Fleming, Lewis, Carter, Elliott, Morgan and Menifee) are currently issuing marriage licenses. (Doc. # 26 at 53). All are less than an hour away from the Rowan County seat of Morehead. (Id.). While Plaintiffs have the means to travel to any one of these counties, they have admittedly chosen not to do so. (Doc. # 21 at 38, 48). They strongly prefer to have their licenses issued in Rowan County because they have significant ties to that community. (Id. at 28-29, 47). They live, work, socialize, vote, pay taxes and conduct other business in and around Morehead. (Id.). Quite simply, Rowan County is their home.According to Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk's Office serves as a "pass through collection agency" for the State of Kentucky. (Doc. # 26 at 24-25). She and her six deputy clerks regularly handle delinquent taxes, oversee elections, manage voter registration and issue hunting and fishing licenses. (Id.). A portion of the fees collected in exchange for these services is used to fund the Office's activities throughout the year. (Id.). The remainder is remitted to the State. (Id.).Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage licenses.[1] See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple must first go to the county clerk's office and provide their biographical information to one of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.[2] Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk's office for recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080.The Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives ("KDLA") prescribes the above-mentioned form, which must be used by all county clerks in issuing marriage licenses.[3] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.100, 402.110. It is composed of three sections, which correspond to the steps detailed above: (1) a marriage license, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk; (2) a marriage certificate, to be completed by a qualified officiant; and (3) a recording statement, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk. The marriage license section has the following components:(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named;(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100(1) (emphasis added).Davis does not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they will bear the above-mentioned authorization statement. She sees it as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which runs contrary to her Apostolic Christian beliefs. (Id. at 42). Four of Davis' deputy clerks share her religious objection to same-sex marriage, and another is undecided on the subject. (Id. at 49). The final deputy clerk is willing to issue the licenses, but Davis will not allow it because her name and title still appear twice on licenses that she does not personally sign. (Doc. # 29-3 at 7).In the wake of Obergefell, Governor Beshear issued the following directive to all county clerks:Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.(Doc. # 29-3 at 11). He has since addressed some of the religious concerns expressed by some county clerks:You can continue to have your own personal beliefs but, you're also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at that point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, th[e]n obviously an honorable course to take is to resign and let someone else step in who feels that they can fulfill those duties.(Doc. # 29-11). Davis is well aware of these directives. Nevertheless, she plans to implement her "no marriage licenses" policy for the remaining three and a half years of her term as Rowan County Clerk. (Doc. # 26 at 67).III. Standard of ReviewA district court must consider four factors when entertaining a motion for preliminary injunction:(1) whether the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits;(2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable harm;(3) whether an injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of such an injunction.See Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 528 (6th Cir. 1998). These "are factors to be balanced, and not prerequisites that must be met." In re Eagle Picher Indus., Inc.,963 F.3d 855, 859 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating further that these factors "simply guide the discretion of the court").IV. AnalysisA. Defendant Kim Davis in her official capacityPlaintiffs are pursuing this civil rights action against Defendants Rowan County and Kim Davis, in her individual and official capacities, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .This statute "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (internal quotations omitted).At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights by obtaining injunctive relief against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk. Because official capacity suits "generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent," one might assume that Plaintiffs are effectively pursuing injunctive relief against Rowan County. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978). However, Rowan County can only be held liable under § 1983 if its policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation. Id. at 694.A single decision made by an official with final policymaking authority in the relevant area may qualify as a policy attributable to the entity. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986). Whether an official acted as a final policymaker is a question of state or local law. Id. However, courts must avoid categorizing an official as a state or municipal actor "in some categorical, `all or nothing' manner." McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997). They key inquiry is whether an official is a "final policymaker [] for the local government in a particular area, or on a particular issue." Id. Accordingly, the Court will focus on whether Davis likely acted as a final policymaker for Rowan County regarding the issuance of marriage licenses.While Davis is the elected Rowan County Clerk, subject to very little oversight by the Rowan County Fiscal Court, there are no other facts in the record to suggest that she set marriage policy for Rowan County. After all, the State of Kentucky has "absolute jurisdiction over the regulation of the institution of marriage." Pinkhasov v. Petocz, 331 S.W.3d 285, 291 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011). The State not only enacts marriage laws, it prescribes procedures for county clerks to follow when carrying out those laws, right down to the form they must use in issuing marriage licenses. Id.; see also Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.080, 402.100. Thus, Davis likely acts for the State of Kentucky, and not as a final policymaker for Rowan County, when issuing marriage licenses.This preliminary finding does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from obtaining injunctive relief against Davis. While the Eleventh Amendment typically bars Plaintiffs from bringing suit against a state or its officials, "official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state." Kentucky v. Graham,473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985). This narrow exception, known as the Ex Parte Young doctrine, permits a federal court to "enjoin state officials to conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law." Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337 (1979) (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)). "It rests on the premise-less delicately called a `fiction,'-that when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign immunity purposes." Va. Office for Prot. and Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1638 (2011). Because Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Davis from violating their federal constitutional rights, this Court has the power to grant relief under Ex Parte Young.[4]B. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction1. Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the meritsa. The fundamental right to marryUnder the Fourteenth Amendment, a state may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This "due process" clause has both a procedural component and a substantive component. See EJS Prop., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845, 855 (6th Cir. 2012). Procedural due process simply requires that the government provide a fair procedure when depriving an individual of life, liberty or property. Id. By contrast, substantive due process "protects a narrow class of interests, including those enumerated in the Constitution, those so rooted in the traditions of the people as to be ranked fundamental, and the interest in freedom from government actions that `shock the conscience.'" Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 588 (6th Cir. 2014).Although the Constitution makes no mention of the right to marry, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified it as a fundamental interest subject to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (striking down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes as violative of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). After all, "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Id. This right applies with equal force to different-sex and same-sex couples. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2604-05 (2015) ("[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.").If a state law or policy "significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right[, it] cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978). A state substantially interferes with the right to marry when some members of the affected class "are absolutely prevented from getting married" and "[m]any others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements[,] will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry." Id. at 387 (invalidating a Wisconsin statute that required individuals with child support obligations to obtain a court order before marrying).However, "not every state action, `which relates in any way to the incidents of or the prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.'" Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1134 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386). States may impose "reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship." Id. at 1135. If the statute does not create a "direct legal obstacle in the path of persons desiring to get married" or significantly discourage marriage, then it will be upheld so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Id. (quoting Zablocki 434 U.S. at 387-88 n. 12); see also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47, 54 n.11 (1977) (upholding a Social Security provision that terminated secondary benefits received by the disabled dependent child of a covered wage earner if that child married an individual who was not entitled to benefits).The state action at issue in this case is Defendant Davis' refusal to issue anymarriage licenses. Plaintiffs contend that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly interferes with their right to marry because they are unable to obtain a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy does not significantly discourage Plaintiffs from marrying because they have several other options for obtaining licenses: (1) they may go to one of the seven neighboring counties that areissuing marriage licenses; (2) they may obtain licenses from Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins; or (3) they may avail themselves of other alternatives being considered post-Obergefell.Davis is correct in stating that Plaintiffs can obtain marriage licenses from one of the surrounding counties; thus, they are not totally precluded from marrying in Kentucky. However, this argument ignores the fact that Plaintiffs have strong ties to Rowan County. They are long-time residents who live, work, pay taxes, vote and conduct other business in Morehead. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that Plaintiffs would prefer to obtain their marriage licenses in their home county. And for other Rowan County residents, it may be more than a preference. The surrounding counties are only thirty minutes to an hour away, but there are individuals in this rural region of the state who simply do not have the physical, financial or practical means to travel.[5]This argument also presupposes that Rowan County will be the only Kentucky county not issuing marriage licenses. While Davis may be the only clerk currently turning away eligible couples, 57 of the state's 120 elected county clerks have asked Governor Beshear to call a special session of the state legislature to address religious concerns related to same-sex marriage licenses.[6] (Doc. # 29-9). If this Court were to hold that Davis' policy did not significantly interfere with the right to marry, what would stop the other 56 clerks from following Davis' approach? What might be viewed as an inconvenience for residents of one or two counties quickly becomes a substantial interference when applicable to approximately half of the state.As for her assertion that Judge Blevins may issue marriage licenses, Davis is only partially correct. KRS § 402.240 provides that, "[i]n the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk." The statute does not explicitly define "absence," suggesting that a traditional interpretation of the term is appropriate. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2015, Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster, (describing "absence" as "a period of time when someone is not present at a place, job, etc."). However, Davis asks the Court to deem her "absent," for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office. After all, KRS § 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage licenses when Davis is unableto do so; it does not permit him to assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to perform. Such an arrangement not only has the potential to create tension between the next judge executive and county clerk, it sets the stage for further manipulation of statutorily defined duties.[7] Under these circumstances, the Court simply cannot count this as a viable option for Plaintiffs to obtain their marriage licenses.Davis finally suggests that Plaintiffs will have other avenues for obtaining marriage licenses in the future. For example, county clerks have urged Governor Beshear to create an online marriage licensing system, which would be managed by the State of Kentucky. While these options may be available someday, they are not feasible alternatives at present. Thus, they have no impact on the Court's "substantial interference" analysis.Having considered Davis' arguments in depth, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have one feasible avenue for obtaining their marriage licenses-they must go to another county. Davis makes much of the fact that Plaintiffs are able to travel, but she fails to address the one question that lingers in the Court's mind. Even if Plaintiffs are able to obtain licenses elsewhere, why should they be required to? The state has long entrusted county clerks with the task of issuing marriage licenses. It does not seem unreasonable for Plaintiffs, as Rowan County voters, to expect their elected official to perform her statutorily assigned duties. And yet, that is precisely what Davis is refusing to do. Much like the statutes at issue in Loving and Zablocki, Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly discourages many Rowan County residents from exercising their right to marry and effectively disqualifies others from doing so. The Court must subject this policy apply heightened scrutiny.b. The absence of a compelling state interestWhen pressed to articulate a compelling state interest served by her "no marriage licenses" policy, Davis responded that it serves the State's interest in protecting her religious freedom. The State certainly has an obligation to "observe the basic free exercise rights of its employees," but this is not the extent of its concerns. Marchi v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Serv. of Albany, 173 F.3d 469, 476 (2d. Cir. 1999). In fact, the State has some priorities that run contrary to Davis' proffered state interest. Chief among these is its interest in preventing Establishment Clause violations. See U.S. Const. amend. I (declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"). Davis has arguably committed such a violation by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others.[8] In such situations, "the scope of the employees' rights must [] yield to the legitimate interest of governmental employer in avoiding litigation." Marchi, 173 F.3d at 476.The State also has a countervailing interest in upholding the rule of law. See generally Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 171 (1972) ("The rule of law, evenly applied to minorities as well as majorities, . . . is the great mucilage that holds society together."). Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the Court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent.For these reasons, the Court concludes that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' rights without serving a compelling state interest. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, this first factor weighs in favor of granting their request for relief.2. Potential for irreparable harm to PlaintiffsWhen a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of a constitutional deprivation claim, it follows that he or she will suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief. See Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Courts have also held that a plaintiff can demonstrate that a denial of an injunction will cause irreparable harm if the claim is based upon a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights."); see also Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir .1998) (finding that the loss of First Amendment rights for a minimal period of time results in irreparable harm); Ohio St. Conference of NAACP v. Husted, 43 F. Supp. 3d 808, 851 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (recognizing that a restriction on the fundamental right to vote constitutes irreparable injury).The Court is not aware of any Sixth Circuit case law explicitly stating that a denial of the fundamental right to marry constitutes irreparable harm. However, the case law cited above suggests that the denial of constitutional rights, enumerated or unenumerated, results in irreparable harm. It follows that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm from Davis' "no marriage licenses" rule, absent injunctive relief. Therefore, this second factor also weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.3. Potential for substantial harm to Kim Davisa. The right to free exercise of religionThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment). This Free Exercise Clause "embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act." Id. at 304. "The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be." Id. Therefore, "[c]onduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." Id.Traditionally, a free exercise challenge to a particular law triggered strict scrutiny.See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407 (1963). A statute would only be upheld if it served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to effectuate that interest. Id. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated slightly from this approach. See Emp't Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). While laws targeting religious conduct remain subject to strict scrutiny, "[a] law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532; see also Smith, 494 U.S. at 880 (stating further that an individual's religious beliefs do not "excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate")."Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and . . . failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532. A law is not neutral if its object "is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation." Id. at 533 (finding that a local ordinance forbidding animal sacrifice was not neutral because it focused on "rituals" and had built-in exemptions for most other animal killings). The Court has not yet "defined with precision the standard used to evaluate whether a prohibition is of general application." Id. at 543. However, it has observed that "[t]he Free Exercise Clause `protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment,' and inequality results when a legislature decides that the governmental interests it seeks to advance are worthy of being pursued only against conduct with a religious motivation." Id. at 542.While Smith and Babalu do not explicitly mention the term "rational basis," lower courts have interpreted them as imposing a similar standard of review on neutral laws of general applicability. See, e.g., Seger v. Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 453 F. App's 630, 634 (2011). Under rational basis review, laws will be upheld if they are "rationally related to furthering a legitimate state interest." Id. at 635 (noting that "[a] law or regulation subject to rational basis review is accorded a strong presumption of validity"); see also F.C.C. v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)(stating generally that laws subject to rational basis review must be upheld "if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification").In response to Smith and Babalu, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. It prohibits the government from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," except when the government demonstrates that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Id. Although Congress intended RFRA to apply to the states as well as the federal government, the Court held that this was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' powers under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 512 (1997). Free exercise challenges to federal laws remain subject to RFRA, while similar challenges to state policies are governed by Smith. See, e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).For purposes of this inquiry, the state action at issue is Governor Beshear's post-Obergefell directive, which explicitly instructs county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis argues that the Beshear directive not only substantially burdens her free exercise rights by requiring her to disregard sincerely-held religious beliefs, it does not serve a compelling state interest. She further insists that Governor Beshear could easily grant her a religious exemption without adversely affecting Kentucky's marriage licensing scheme, as there are readily available alternatives for obtaining licenses in and around Rowan County.[9]This argument proceeds on the assumption that Governor Beshear's policy is not neutral or generally applicable, and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.[10]However, the text itself supports a contrary inference. Governor Beshear first describes the legal impact of the Court's decision in Obergefell, then provides guidance for all county clerks in implementing this new law. His goal is simply to ensure that the activities of the Commonwealth are consistent with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.While facial neutrality is not dispositive, Davis has done little to convince the Court that Governor Beshear's directive aims to suppress religious practice. She has only one piece of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that Governor Beshear "is picking and choosing the conscience-based exemptions to marriage that he deems acceptable." (Doc. # 29 at 24). In 2014, Attorney General Jack Conway declined to appeal a federal district court decision striking down Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-12). He openly stated that he could not, in good conscience, defend discrimination and waste public resources on a weak case.[11] (Id.). Instead of directing Attorney General Conway to pursue the appeal, regardless of his religious beliefs, Governor Beshear hired private attorneys for that purpose. (Doc. # 29-13). He has so far refused to extend such an "exemption" to county clerks with religious objections to same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-11).However, Davis fails to establish that her current situation is comparable to Attorney General Conway's position in 2014. Both are elected officials who have voiced strong opinions about same-sex marriage, but the comparison ends there. Governor Beshear did not actually "exempt" Attorney General Conway from pursuing the same-sex marriage appeal. Attorney General Conway's decision stands as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on an unsettled legal question. By contrast, Davis is refusing to recognize the legal force of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence in performing her duties as Rowan County Clerk. Because the two are not similarly situated, the Court simply cannot conclude that Governor Beshear treated them differently based upon their religious convictions. There being no other evidence in the record to suggest that the Beshear directive is anything but neutral and generally applicable, it will likely be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.The Beshear directive certainly serves the State's interest in upholding the rule of law. However, it also rationally relates to several narrower interests identified inObergefell. By issuing licenses to same-sex couples, the State allows them to enjoy "the right to personal choice regarding marriage [that] is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy" and enter into "a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." 135 S. Ct. at 2599-2600. It also allows same-sex couples to take advantage of the many societal benefits and fosters stability for their children. Id. at 2600-01. Therefore, the Court concludes that it likely does not infringe upon Davis' free exercise rights.b. The right to free speechThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Under the Free Speech Clause, an individual has the "right to utter or print, [as well as] the right to distribute, the right to receive and the right to read." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965)(citing Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943)). An individual also has the "right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977) (invalidating a state law that required New Hampshire drivers to display the state motto on their license plates). After all, "[a] system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts." Id.While the Free Speech Clause protects citizens' speech rights from government intrusion, it does not stretch so far as to bar the government "from determining the content of what it says." Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,135 S. Ct. 2239, 2245-46 (2015). "[A]s a general matter, when the government speaks it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and carries out its duties on their behalf." Id.That being said, the government's ability to express itself is not unlimited. Id. "[T]he Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government's speech if, for example, the government seeks to compel private persons to convey the government's speech." Id. (stating further that "[c]onstitutional and statutory provisions outside of the Free Speech Clause may [also] limit government speech").This claim also implicates the Beshear directive. Davis contends that this directive violates her free speech rights by compelling her to express a message she finds objectionable. Specifically, Davis must issue marriage licenses bearing her "imprimatur and authority" as Rowan County Clerk to same-sex couples . Doc. # 29 at 27). Davis views such an act as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which conflicts with her sincerely-held religious beliefs.As a preliminary matter, the Court questions whether the act of issuing a marriage license constitutes speech. Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to "authorize" same-sex marriage. A close inspection of the KDLA marriage licensing form refutes this assertion. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry.The Court must also acknowledge the possibility that any such speech is attributable to the government, rather than Davis. See Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2248 (finding that specialty license plates are government speech because the government has exercised final approval over the designs, and thus, chosen "how to present itself and its constituency"). The State prescribes the form that Davis must use in issuing marriage licenses. She plays no role in composing the form, and she has no discretion to alter it. Moreover, county clerks' offices issue marriage licenses on behalf of the State, not on behalf of a particular elected clerk.Assuming arguendo that the act of issuing a marriage license is speech by Davis, the Court must further consider whether the State is infringing upon her free speech rights by compelling her to convey a message she finds disagreeable. However, the seminal "compelled speech" cases provide little guidance because they focus on private individuals who are forced to communicate a particular message on behalf of the government. See, e.g., W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)(striking down a state law that required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag). Davis is a public employee, and therefore, her speech rights are different than those of a private citizen.[12] Garcetti v. Ceballos,547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006)."[T]he government may not constitutionally compel persons to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition of public employment," but it does have "a freer hand in regulating the speech of its employees than it has in regulating the speech of the public at large." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 156 (1983); Waters v. Churchill,511 U.S. 661, 671 (1994). Accordingly, "[w]hen a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418; see also U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, (1973) (stating that "neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution" invalidates the Hatch Act's bar on partisan political conduct by federal employees)."[T]wo inquiries [] guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech." Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418 (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Ill., 391 U.S. 563, 563 (1968)). First, a court must determine "whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern." Id. (explaining further that this question often depends upon whether the employee's speech was made pursuant to his or her official duties). Id. at 421. If the answer is no, then the employee's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Id. at 421 ("Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen."). If the answer is yes, a court must then consider "whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." Id.(stating further that the government's restrictions "must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity's operations").The Court must adapt this test slightly because Davis' claim focuses on her right notto speak. In this context, the first inquiry is whether Davis refused to speak (i.e. refused to issue marriage licenses) as a citizen on a matter of public concern. The logical answer to this question is no, as the average citizen has no authority to issue marriage licenses. Davis is only able to issue these licenses, or refuse to issue them, because she is the Rowan County Clerk. Because her speech (in the form of her refusal to issue marriage licenses) is a product of her official duties, it likely is not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to succeed on her compelled speech claim.c. The prohibition on religious testsArticle VI, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows:The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Under this Clause, "[t]he fact [] that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution." Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (striking down a state requirement that an individual declare his belief in God in order to become a notary public); see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)(invalidating a state law that prevented religious officials from serving in the state legislature).Davis contends that "[c]ompelling all individuals who have any connection with the issuance of marriage licenses . . . to authorize, approve, and participate in that act against their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, without providing accommodation, amounts to an improper religious test for holding (or maintaining) public office." (Doc. # 29 at 20). The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met thelegal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval. The State is not requiring Davis to express a particular religious belief as a condition of public employment, nor is it forcing her to surrender her free exercise rights in order to perform her duties. Thus, it seems unlikely that Davis will be able to establish a violation of the Religious Test Clause.Although Davis focuses on the Religious Test Clause, the Court must draw her attention to the first half of Article VI, Clause § 3. It requires all state officials to swear an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Davis swore such an oath when she took office on January 1, 2015. However, her actions have not been consistent with her words. Davis has refused to comply with binding legal jurisprudence, and in doing so, she has likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents. When such "sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied." Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2602. Such policies simply cannot endure.d. The Kentucky Religious Freedom ActKentucky Constitution § 1 broadly declares that "[a]ll men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned .. . [t]he right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences." Kentucky Constitution § 5 gives content to this guarantee:No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.Kentucky courts have held that Kentucky Constitution § 5 does not grant more protection to religious practice than the First Amendment. Gingerich v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 835, 839-40 (Ky. 2012). Such a finding would normally permit the Court to collapse its analysis of state and federal constitutional provisions. However, the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act, patterned after the federal RFRA, subjects state free exercise challenges to heightened scrutiny:Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.350.Davis again argues that the Beshear directive substantially burdens her religious freedom without serving a compelling state interest. The record in this case suggests that the burden is more slight. As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5.4. Public interest"[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights." G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 23 F. 3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994). Because Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry, and because Davis herself is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free speech or free exercise rights if an injunction is issued, this fourth and final factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.V. ConclusionDistrict courts are directed to balance four factors when analyzing a motion for preliminary injunction. In this case, all four factors weigh in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein,IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2) against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from applying her "no marriage licenses" policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs. G:\DATA\Opinions\Ashland\15-44 MOO Granting Mtn for Preliminary Injunction.wpd[1] This task requires relatively few resources, at least in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 24-30). Davis testified that her Office issued 212 marriage licenses in 2014. Marriage licenses cost $35.50. (Id.). Of that sum, the Office retains $21.17, and remits the remaining $14.33 to the State. (Id.). Thus, Rowan County Clerk's Office made about $4,500, or roughly 0.1% of its annual budget, from issuing marriage licenses in 2014. (Id.). Davis also estimated that the task of issuing marriage licenses occupies one hour of one deputy clerk's time per week. (Id.).[2] A couple is "legally qualified" to marry if both individuals are over the age of eighteen, mentally competent, unrelated to each other and currently unmarried. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.010, 402.020(a)-(d), (f).[3] Only one aspect of the form has changed since Obergefell-whereas the marriage applicants were once referred to as "Bride" and "Groom," they are now identified as "First Party" and "Second Party."[4] In their reply brief, Plaintiffs argued that the Court need not decide whether Davis is a state actor or municipal policymaker in order to grant injunctive relief. The Court's preliminary finding on this matter does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from arguing the "municipal policymaker" theory in the future. The Court simply seeks to ensure that it is indeed able to grant injunctive relief against Kim Davis in her official capacity.[5] The median household income in Rowan County is $35,236 and 28.6% of the population lives below the poverty line. See United States Census Bureau, Rowan County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. For the entire state of Kentucky, the median household income is $43,036 and 18.8% of the population lives below the poverty line. Id.[6] See also Jack Brammer, 57 County Clerks Ask Governor for Special Session on Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, The Lexington Herald Leader (July 8, 2015), 57 Kentucky county clerks ask governor for special session on same-sex marriage licenses; Terry DeMio, Boone, Ky. Clerks Want Same-Sex License Law, Cincinnati Enquirer (July 9, 2015), Page on ession-address-sex-marriage-issues-clerks/29919103/.[7] Even if the Court were inclined to accept Davis' interpretation of the term "absence," it would have doubts about the practicality of this approach. Judge Blevins is the highest elected official in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 7). He is frequently out of the office on official business. (Id.). While Judge Blevins would not have to process a large number of marriage requests, he might not be regularly available for couples seeking licenses. Thus, the Court would be concerned about Judge Blevins' ability to perform this function as efficiently as Davis and her six deputy clerks.[8] Although it is not the focus of this opinion, Plaintiffs have already asserted such an Establishment Clause claim against Kim Davis in her official capacity. (Doc. # 1 at 13).[9] Davis further develops this argument in her own Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 39) against Governor Beshear and KDLA Librarian Wayne Onkst. That Motion is not yet ripe for review.[10] In Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that free exercise claims involving neutral and generally applicable laws may still be subject to heightened scrutiny if asserted alongside another constitutional right. If the Court concludes that the Beshear directive is neutral and generally applicable, Davis argues that strict scrutiny must still apply because her free exercise claim is coupled with a free speech claim. (Doc. # 29 at 23). However, this proposal fails because Davis' free speech rights are qualified by virtue of her public employment. See Draper v. Logan Cnty. Pub. Library, 403 F. Supp. 2d 608, 621-22 (W.D. Ky. 2005) (applying the Pickering balancing test to a combined free exercise and free speech claim asserted by a public employee). The Court will discuss this concept further in the next section.[11] Davis refers to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky's decisions in Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542, 545 (W.D. Ky. 2014), and Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536, 539 (W.D. Ky. 2014). Judge John Heyburn held that Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriages "violate[] the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review." Bourke, 996 F. Supp. 2d at 544. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated these cases with several similar matters originating from Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee and reversed them. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court of the United States then granted certiorari on these cases, now collectively known asObergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015).[12] Most free speech cases involving public employees center on compelled silence rather than compelled speech. See, e.g., Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48 (focusing on a district attorney's claim that she was fired in retaliation for exercising her free speech rights). "[I]n the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional significance, for the First Amendment guarantees `freedom of speech,' a term necessarily comprising the decision of both what to say and what not to say." Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796-97.

Who joined Justice Thomas when he wrote the opinion for the majority?

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

People Want Us

It all seems automatic, I would like to know more about it's function, Why's and what-fores, instead of just logging on and it appears. All I know is that it is a major function for downloading photographs and some documents. There should be a tutorial offered to those who are senior citizens and so many things are automatic.

Justin Miller