A case in which the Court was asked to clarify the scope of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a “criminal case”—specifically whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when a criminal defendant is compelled to incriminate himself and the incriminating statement is used in a probable cause hearing.

A case in which the Court held that a police officer cannot, under the Fourth Amendment, enter private property in order to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

A case in which the Court held that its prior decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation addressed only a question of statutory interpretation, not the question whether Indian tribes have sovereign immunity in in rem lawsuits.

A case in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act requires that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings be enforced.

A case in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act requires that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings be enforced.

A case in which the Court held that challenges to the federal district-wide policy of using of pretrial physical restraints are moot.

A case in which the Court held that a criminal defendant has the right under the Sixth Amendment to insist that his attorney not concede guilt in a capital case.

A case in which the Court held that a driver of a rental car who has permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car.

A case in which the Court decided that wiretap orders authorized by a judge for the federal district of Kansas in a government investigation of a suspected Kansas drug distribution ring were not facially insufficient because they did not lack any information that the wiretap statute required them to include, and because the challenged language permitting interception outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction was surplus.

A case in which the Court decided that provisions of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that prohibit state authorization and licensing of sports gambling schemes violate the Constitution’s anticommandeering rule, and that no other PASPA provisions are severable from the provisions at issue.